decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Well argued, sorry PJ | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Ok, so that is your opinion. About C180 don't you confuse BMW with Mercedes?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
act against what court order???
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
Parent writes ...
"the acts of a ´lawyer´ (against a court order) get
justified... "

Just what court order are you referring to?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
A Samsung lawyer used their first amendment rights to
answer media questions. Apple over-reacted and asked
for sanctions. Apple was denied.

So now ... what court order did a lawyer act against???

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well argued, sorry PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
Well argued and reasoned. Of course you will be shouted out of town here.

I've been reading Groklaw since late 2003. I I've donated money. Not a lot, but it's my personal money and I donated on a couple occasions. How many of you have put your money where your mouths are? I cheered PJ and her style. She had a clear agenda, but was completely transparent about it and supported it with the community's help with facts and logic.

I've been a Linux user since 1991 (yes, well before there was a distribution). I have (unimportant, but still legitimate) kernel credits. I love Linux and the contribution it's made to the industry.

I also recall PJ discussing the Mac notebooks, and defending Apple for its choice to keep many things closed by explaining that everything Apple produced was original, that they deserved their recognition for design excellence and that they truly moved the entire industry in ways it wasn't going on its own, to the benefit of everyone. They honored open- source licenses wherever they used them, and their closed software (and hardware) was entirely of their own invention and design. They did it the hard way (on their own) and deserve to control their creations exactly like GPL authors deserve to control their creations with the concept of Copyleft.

But Groklaw is now off the rails.

Now that Apple is directly taking on Samsung, an Android partner, whatever objectivity there was has been completely thrown out the window. Sorry, it's not because PJ is no longer in complete control... PJ you're leading the march down the wrong road here.

If you've spent any time with these products, and if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, it's overwhelmingly obvious that the Android UI, and to a much greater extent Samsung's Android physical products, are entirely formulated to be direct copies of all Apple's designs and innovations in iPad, iPhone, and iPod. Frankly I'm embarrassed and disappointed in the entire Android team for being led down that path to begin with, because while Apple's iOS platform is great, it's hardly the only way to do things, and Android's decision to become an also-alike to iOS limits its potential.

But this lawsuit really isn't about Android. It's about physical products shipped to the world, old-school bricks-and-mortar products.

Apple went to great length to set its products apart from the competition, so that people would rightly recognize them when they see them. That is why iPhones, iPads, and iPods look so much different than other manufacturers' products, in ways that have nothing to do with function.

Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs, visually, down almost to the last detail. The clear intent was to trick the consumer into believing that all tablets are the same, so that Samsung could take advantage of Apple's inventions to sell their own products (whether Samsung copied the actual benefits of the Apple products or not).

That's the heart of the trade dress issue in this lawsuit. The reason Samsung is playing BS games in the media is that they have been called out on it, and they want to obscure the embarrassment as much as possible by throwing up smokescreens.

This isn't Microsoft lunging out at Linux for being better and threatening their cash cow. This isn't Oracle vs Google either, with Oracle trying to grasp at straws and close off the sandbox after having invited everyone in. This is a lot more like the ugly underbelly of the Psystar lawsuit, where someone (and it may still be a mystery exactly who) was trying to undermine the GPL by challenging authors' rights to control the distribution of their creations. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

If Samsung had chosen to innovate itself, and either continue along the design line it was using itself, or stride off in another direction, this fight wouldn't be happening. When they realized that their physical designs were just another ho-hum plastic case like the rest of the tablet market that nobody was interested in, they could have done any number of things. But they didn't; they chose to clone Apple's unique break-out look, and to try to co-opt some of the excitement (and market) created by Apple for themselves. That's dishonest and illegal.

The claims that this is Apple being anti-competitive are ludicrous on their face. The only products Apple is fighting are the ones that are blatant copies of the breakthrough attributes of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod that didn't exist before.

Shame on you PJ. I'm disappointed that you can't see past your allegiance to Linux enough to see its anticompetitive standards-essential patent abuse and its blatant counterfeiting for what it is.

Don't like that Apple is using patents and "trade dress" law to protect its brand? Write your congressperson and get the laws changed. Or better yet, learn more about patents and trade dress and understand why this isn't exactly the same as the software patent bogeyman.

Ignore or disparage this rant if you will, but I'm sad to say that Groklaw is leaving my RSS list today after almost 9 years of committed readership. Good riddance, I'm sure many of you will say, but you really should step back and listen to yourselves. You're not the thoughtful, balanced group you once were (and not long ago). "Rabid mob" might be unfair, but only slightly so.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
There was no order against publishing the evidence, you Apple

And spare me "I'm no an apple fanboy, I've so and so"
bullshit when you then proceed to state the Apple mantra.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Authored by: calris74 on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT
What many have difficult to understand is that, outside the ´tech world´, most people doesn't have a clue about what an OS is, or what a microprocessor is, or... It is quite anecdotal. But this really an issue here, since if you look at one of those many galaxies out there, you have to look closely to notice it is a samsung... otherwise, on the hurry, you may be mistaken.

OK, I'm looking at my Samsung Galaxy SII right now and I notice a few things:

  • It's thinner than my iPhone 3GS and my work colleagues iPhone 4
  • It's slightly larger in surface area than both iPhones
  • It has Samsung written on the front face - The iPhones have a logo on the back
  • It has a removable back cover, the iPhones do not
  • It has a removable battery, the iPhones do not
  • It has a square button down the bottom, the iPhones have a round one
  • It has a power button on the side, the iPhone's is on the top
And I haven't even turned it on yet - Im sorry, but I can mistake my Samsung Galaxy SII for an iPhone as much as I can mistake, say, a small rectangular block of wood

And the point here isn't the rectangle (all phones are like that) but the overall appearance. I mean, before iPhone, all phones were quite different, there was all sort of layouts, styles, models (in the lower and upper end...). As they say, there was no design reference. Now, when you look at the upper end, they look all the same (as an iPhone, a bit bigger, a bit smaller, thicker...but overall alike).
But there is one thing that is bothering me most, I mean, I started reading groklaw about 2003, it was refreshing in the sense, above the opinions, there was always reference to written law, so that anyone could follow the logic... And now, in this ´apple x samsung´ theater, I see more and more opinions of how wrong the ´trade law´ is, how unfair the magistrate is..and..and... to the point that the acts of a ´lawyer´ (against a court order) get justified... It seams that, since the logic don´t follows, you need emotion.

Others have already said it - There was no court order prohibiting the Samsung lawyers from doing what they did. If there was, sanctions would have been immediate. And what you are now saying is that whatever Apple's lawyers do, they do not need to be 'justified', but Samsung's lawyers must justify every action

I have no stake on apple, I have had phones from samsung (peace of ...), motorola (mostly a pain), siemens (quite nice), nokia (always reliable)... and apple (expensive, but simply works).

OK, I resisted the 'Apple is sooo great' mantra during the iPod era (I didn't even consider buying any MP3 player). That was until Apple released the first iPod nano and I simply had to have one. Yep, Apple had created something so incredible (small, light, functional) that I had to have it. Thing is, there were heaps of other small MP3 players in the market. The big difference witht he iPod nano was the LCD graphic screen (others just had little text displays) and iTunes.

Years later, I went to the Apple store in Sydney. WOW! I was dumbstruck by how impressive the store was, and the design elegance of the Apple products. Not long after that, my wife bought me an iPod Touch. It was expensive and, alas, it did not just work. The touch screen was registering about 1/3 of the screen to the left. I could not even unlock it. But we got a replacement that worked the next day

Before then, I only had 'dumb-phones' from Nokia. Mostly good, some were a bit iffy. But after the iPod Touch, I had to have an iPhone 3GS. It was pretty good, until a firware update resulted in random in-call shut-downs. A problem that, despite thousands of postings to the official Apple forums, was never fixed.

Apple quickly started loosing my support

Then I bought the a HP TouchPad during the firesale. WebOS was nice, nothing spectacular thought. Then Cyanogen ported Android to it. WOW! Not only was the UI far superior (in my opinion) to iOS, I now had a device that was not closed. I could hack on the OS. Sure, not something every consumer cares about, but this one did

After that, I got the Samsung Galaxy SII. I love it - it has widgets. When I unlock it, I can see the weather without opening an app. I can drag down from the top and get instant access to turning WiFi, GPS, Vibrate mode, etc on and off. The configuration settings are way more logical (to me). All in all, it's a far superior phone to the iPhone 3GS

AND they are worlds apart, specially when you compare the phones before and after apple got into it.

Yes, they are. I remember back to the Apple IIe days (my first computer) when it was Apple versus Commodore. The C64 was a better computer for the home consumer (colour graphics without an add-in card, plugged into a TV, more games, cheaper, etc, etc. But what Apple did was get intot he schools. It offered teachers a massive discount. In short, Apple was clever. Then the PC came out and dominated the home marker. Apple got clever again - They created the Macintosh. The Macintosh was designed for the professional graphics and CAD market (our high school had one for the engineering drawing course). But then Apple lost it's way (thanks in no small part to Microsoft's antics). Apple nearly went bankrupt. But then they came back. How? They inovated, they made Apple products 'cool'. And we all loved them for it. Apple was smashing Microsoft. We hated Microsoft because they were being a bully, using muscle instead of imagination. Fear instead of innovation.

We can discuss if the law is fair, if there is ´prior art´, if the tactics are ´lawful/fair´... But is really hard to argue that, without Apple we would having phones like the ones we have today, or that the ´face/style/design´ of the phones would be like the ones from apple, or even if there would be an android ...

WOW! Have a read of what you just wrote. You are saying that prior art is meaningless unless it is Apple's. It's OK for Apple to stand upon the shoulders of those how stood before them, but how dare Samsung stand on Apple's! Look at the prior art - There were already smart-phones in the market that closely resembled the iPhone before the iPhone was released. Just because that prior art has been barred from this case does not mean it suddenly does not exist

Symbian was king, windows phone 6.5 was a knight, HTC/samsung were trying to ´imitate them´...this was before...

Apple was a real game changer in that process, and the establishment got unguarded.

100% true and correct - Apple was a game changer. The establishment was taken offguard.

What is also true and correct is that Apple, like 3dfx, make one big mistake - They got complacent. Apple had a massive market share. How could that have possibly been eroded. Ah, of course, Samsung cheated.

And the way I understand ´trademark law´, ´design and trade dress´, the whole idea is to ´exclude the others´, and make sure no one will ´eat my encilhada´. (which is obviously unfair for the others...). Many will not agree, but Apple trait their devices as ´porches/ferraris´ (or a gucci/loui viton purse), and they stick a price on it. If, lets say, samsung produce phones that, on the surface are mostly equal, but for the half of it, they loose value, as simple as that.

No - patents are to exlude others. Trade marks are to prevent others from mimicing your design and gaining market share by leveraging off consumer confusion. I aggree, Apple is 'top shelf'. The engineering is impecible - solid, clean, etc. But Samsung phones are not equal. There are so many distinguishing features that the appearance of the phone is not the sole factor in the purchasing decision. People now want an Android Phone - They will go into a phone shop and say 'what Android phones do you have' - Samsung are competing against other Android phones more than they compete against the iPhone.

I´m sure they don´t care if samsung, nokia would sell ´better spec. phones´, for half the price, but with different design/appearance/interface, so that they could still ´over price´ their phones... just for being apple (like they do with their mac´s).

of course Apple care if Samsung, Nokia, et. al. sell a better spec'd phone! If they didn't, they wouldn't have introduced 'Retina Display'

This is the best for the end user? Well, that´s hard to answer. No one is obeyed to buy from A or B. But, if you like the quality of a BMW, the engine of a BMW, the comfort of a BMW, the safety of a BMW, you should better be prepared to pay for it, and don´t expect that a Korean company would produce a ´c 180 cabriolet´ mainly identical to original one, but with a different logo...

Ah, if I produced a car identical to a BMW with a different logo, then BMW would have a trade-dress argument. But, if I produce a black sedan with four wheels and an engine at the front, BMW has no claim. Now, if I produce an obvious variation to one of my existing cars and released it at the same time as BMW releases a similar looking car, who is at fault? My new car is a simple variation of my old car. Actually, cars are a good example - Take two car manufactures from the same country (Ford and Holden in Australia for example). Now, go back and compare, year by year, each of the cars they manufactured. The designs change a lot over time, but funnily, each year they kindof look the same as each other. They follow a kind of fashion trend. Ever thought that phones might be the same?

Last point, samsung is the power it is today, in part because of apple, what reminds that apple is really searching for new suppliers...this is going to be a long war.

And Apple is where it is because of Samsung. Did you know that Samsung produce the 'Retina Display' for the iPad (and LG for the iPhone)?

Well, as for opinion, this is mine.

And you are more than welcome to have and to express it. But please, don't take offence when it's flaws are pointed out :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
  • PJ - Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:11 AM EDT
    • PJ - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT
  • PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:53 AM EDT
  • PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT
Well, as they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Your homework assignment is to prove that I have ever written that trade law is all wrong. Also show me the court order you allege that the Samsung lawyer violated. You won't be able to prove either.

By the way, just so you know, I see your real IP address, as well as the pretend one. And if you keep this up, with your phony ways, you are so outahere.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    You are wrong
    Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
    "And the point here isn't the rectangle (all phones are like


    "but the overall appearance."

    Oh? But there ARE differences between models and makes.

    "Apple was a real game changer in that process, and the
    establishment got unguarded."

    Wrong. Apple was not first with anything really and was not
    a game changer. They were new to the market. That's it.
    Nothing more than Jobs and an unprecedented hype thanks to a
    semi-religious cult following which has been around since
    the 1980s.

    That, AND, that less tech savvy journalists at large
    newspapers (i.e. paper newspapers like NYTimes etc) tended
    to report about iPhone as well as had done for their
    favorite computer, the pathetic iMac. So, these lowlife
    undereducated journalists who had no idea about technology
    started to bring the news about the iPhone to the large
    masses. These guys had never reported about a phone before.
    But, when their favorite computer maker made one, THEN, it
    was news-worthy.

    That is why the iPhone succeeded. Not, because of anything
    else. It was a hype, self-created and self-perpetuated by
    front page journalists very much aware that they were
    pushing their limits in objectivity; but done so in the name
    of Apple, their favorite computer.

    What was also important for iPhone was the emergence of new,
    cheaper technologies like touchscreens. But, those were
    used by other makers too and Apple (or Steve Jobs...) had
    little to do with that.

    Look at the Neonode instead! That is several years older
    than the iPhone, if only to see all iPhone ideas in vivo
    long before iPhone. Unfortunately, Neonode didn't have a
    obsessively possessed leader.



    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )