DailyTech - Samsung Emails Bolster Apple's "Copying" Claims, But Show Innovation Too

Submit News

Gadgets Samsung Emails Bolster Apple's "Copying" Claims, But Show Innovation Too
Jason Mick (Blog) - July 27, 2012 4:55 PM

24 comment(s) - last by drycrust3.. on Jul 28 at 5:12 PM

From 2008 to 2010 Samsung was content to copy, but by 2011 it wanted to beat Apple

Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) lawyers have been busy sifting through Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) emails -- well the ones that weren't destroyed, at least -- searching for hints that could steer the jury into the perception that Samsung was "copying" Apple's patented iPhone/iPad features and designs.

I. Context When Considering Apple v. Samsung

Overarching questions hover over the case -- for example, whether Apple's patents on seemingly trivial software features should be valid (this approach is not used by video game or web designers, who freely imitate each other to enhance their product, and has not harmed competition or industry evolution).

U.S. Patent Law forbids patenting of abstract ideas, so it becomes a question of whether simple animations are patentable. Likewise, many of the animations (e.g. the "bounce animation") mimic nature (in that case, transitive responses) so the question is whether the graphical flourish is non-patentable because it's animation/imitation of a natural phenomenon.

Also, questions surround whether a company should be able to patent a "minimalist" tablet/smartphone design. Apple's design patents U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889 have little accompanying text, so it is Apple's lawyers' interpretation that they claim the patent grants a monopoly on "minimalist", clean designs. That is a highly questionable interpretation.

Apple D'889 patent

However, Apple does do a good job via documents it dug up from Samsung's surrendered data dumps in establishing that circa-2010 Samsung was clearly fixated on copying Apple's hardware, design, and software. The documents also indicate a shift in 2011, where Samsung's discussion changes from being like Apple to trying to beat Apple.

In a way this is good for each company. While the wealth of evidence supporting copying may lead to infringement findings, unless Apple's patents are invalidated, the evidence which supports Samsung is now no longer interested in merely being "like Apple" may protect its more recent products from sales bans.

Let's look at how the evidence [PDF] supports that general picture.

II. Evidence Points to Clear Copying

The document trail begins in 2010 when Samsung was working on its first major Android hit -- the Galaxy S -- and was working to get serious in the tablet market with a 10-inch direct competitor to the iPad.

In an email from Samsung design leader Hyesun "Sunny" Kim, concern is expressed that Samsung is studying Nokia Oyj. (HEX:NOK1V) to carefully, but has missed the driver of the state of the art -- Apple.

Writes Kim (p.173), "All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide, yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It's a crisis of design."

"[Apple's v. Samsung's UI] difference... is truly Heaven and Earth"
--Samsung design manager

Samsung's slides broke down the iPhone's assets (pg. 107), even using the word "copy" at some points (but only in reference to copying the hardware of the iPhone).

_{(emphasis on text added, text enlarged)}

An earlier Dec. 2008 breakdown (pg. 148) carefully studied the iPhone, discussing keys to its success. One of three drivers was the phone's "whimsical" character, and top on its list of attributes in that category was "list bounce". Coincidentally Samsung added list bounce to its only user interface, which Apple claims infringes on its patent on the feature.

The slide notes that the iPhone has extra "sensors" that were non-standard at the time (such as accelerometers, gyroscopes) and transition effects that made it "just plain cool".

"[The iPhone is] just plain cool"
--Samsung market research

A second slide breaks down the design of the iPhone emphasis that it uses "few buttons", has a "minimal" design, and is "screen-centric". The overall feeling from the slides is that Samsung was carefully studying what made the iPhone tick and making a check list of features to add to its own product -- precisely the impression Apple's lawyers want to convey.

Samsung even looked for clues to Apple's marketing strategy. For example they analyze (p. 31) a Best Buy Comp., Inc. (BBY) training partnership, commenting that Apple compensates for the "deficiency of BBY e-learning system" with a program that bribes employees with free accessories to develop enthusiasm and products about Apple's products, making sales people pitch them harder and more effectively than other gadget-makers' designs.

A slide showing Samsung's first Android smartphone, the I7500 indicated that Samsung was concerned about the apps screen appearing to blatantly like it was imitating Apple's home screen. The early UI draft closely copied the iPhone, but the slide complained that the icon "container" (the layout) was "too iPhone like".

_{(emphasis on text added, text enlarged)}

The design was changed to a less similar design. But with the Galaxy S, the apps screen (not to be confused with the home screen) back-tracked and Samsung decided to imitate Apple after all.

_{Samsung considered copying the iPhone's interface (far left) with the I7500 (center left), but it ultimately rejected that idea, making the final design (center right) was designed substantially different from Apple's. The Galaxy S (far right), however, returned Samsung's UI to a closer copy of Apple's.}

In a slide deck from Apple 2009 dubbed "UX Exploration study" (p. 179), Samsung market researchers suggested copying Apple's double-tap to zoom feature, commenting, "The UX of the iPhone can be used as a design benchmark."

"The [UI] of the iPhone can be... a design benchmark."
--Samsung market research

Perhaps its not surprising that the phone drew comparisons at Google Inc.'s (GOOG) May 2010 Google I/O event. Samsung managers in emails (p. 176-177) passed around enthusiastic comments from developers, which included commentary on how much Galaxy S looked and felt like the iPhone.

Among the comments shared:

The menu looks just like iPhone. But I like it cause it looks familiar to me."
Galaxy S looks very similar to iPhone.

Likewise, others were taking note of similarities between Samsung's second major tablet release (dubbed P3 in the court filings), the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Google expressed concern (p. 205) that the Tab looked "too similar to Apple". Google ordered Samsung to "make it noticeably different, starting with the front side."

"Since [the Tab 10.1] is too similar to Apple, make it noticeably different"
--Google to Apple

The Galaxy S launched in June 2010. Apple was not happy. It filed suit a 10 months later in April 2011. The suit may have been precipitated by failed negotiations in which Apple warned Samsung to stay away from the tablet market.

Samsung refused to back down, launching the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in June 2011. It is unclear whether Google's request differentiation from the iPad was included in that design, as the design Google was talking about being "too similar to Apple['s iPad]" was never pictured.

III. From Imitation to Originality

In an ideal world Apple would love to show that Samsung is still copying its handsets and tablets. But visually that does not appear to be the case.

Likewise the court documents, perhaps inadvertently, paint a picture that damages Apple's claim that Samsung continued to copy. In fact, they show the company in 2011 transitioned from looking to catch up with Apple in terms of product, to looking to "beat" Apple and "differentiate" its products past the iPhone.

Samsung called (p. 123) its campaign "S>A" (it commonly referred to Apple as (company) "A" throughout the slide decks) -- Samsung > Apple. In another deck (p. 113), dated Sept. 2011, Samsung writes, "Goal of next year -- BEAT APPLE". Humorously it writes that it is "lacking confidence" in that plan.

"Goal of next year -- BEAT APPLE"
--Samsung, Sept. 2011

The company writes that keys to beating Apple include LTE modems, larger screens, and "aggressive pricing".

The company expressed concern that the Galaxy S III must be a "differentiated device" (versus the iPhone), but that it "currently may not be".

Again this paints a picture of a company who has learned via emulation, but is now looking to take things to the next level, going from copying to creation.

In a "top secret" Feb. 2012 document (pg. 165) Samsung brags, "U.S. Market Becoming a Two Horse Race Between Apple and Samsung". Samsung appeared to relish knocking its fellow Android smartphone maker HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) down a peg, even though its OEM market share still lagged behind Apple's in the U.S. market.

Growing in confidence, Samsung expressed frustration that carrier partner AT&T, Inc. (T) "opposed 'Fan Boy' ads", a series of commercials mocking Apple users' ritualistic launch lineups. Samsung writes that the opposition prevented it from fully spending on the campaign.

_{By 2011 Samsung was no longer looking to copy Apple. [Image Source: Samsung]}

These documents all point to a new Samsung, a Samsung who increasingly felt that it could build its own UI and hardware that were better than Apple's. The slides foreshadowed Samsung's recent dramatic pass of Apple in global smartphone sales.

IV. Is Copying a Crime?

Arguably, copying Apple may have elevated Samsung slightly, but there's three major questions to answer -- was it illegal, if so did it continue, and lastly should it have been illegal?

The answer to the former question may be technically "yes", but that could change if the U.S. looks carefully at the prior art in software. Many of Apple's "innovations" (e.g. the bounce effect) were found to be invalid due to prior art in other regions, such as the UK. It is not unfathomable that Samsung could find a sympathetic U.S. court to give it a fair shot at validation as well.

Second, the case highlights a glaring flaw of our intellectual property system, in that by barring imitation, evolution is discouraged.

^{Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1}

The Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab 10.1 clearly copied aspects of the iPhone and iPad. But they also had elements that were clearly their own. In other words they weren't exact copies. And they eventually led to innovative new designs -- Samsung clearly has not continued to copy Apple to as great a degree.

One potential issue -- and which esteemed intellectual property experts like Judge Richard A. Posner -- have asserted -- is that there is an increasing amount of patenting of non-novel (not in the legal sense of the word, but in the philosophical context), simple ideas such that in some niches nearly every simple idea becomes patented.

Thus because of an irrational fear that casual imitation will lead to "cloning" (exact copies), the system is essentially preventing the learning and borrowing of ideas, reducing each individual or company to beating rocks together in a cave, trying to find a new way to start a fire because the obvious one has already been patented.

Humans learn from imitation. Apple itself imitated Google's notifications menu in iOS -- a key innovation of Google's platform.

The inalienable fact is that human’s copy and learn (some) ideas from imitation, be they humans at Samsung or at Apple. Thus Samsung's greatest crime on the device market might be its humanity.

Source: The Verge

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

I'm sorry

By TSS on 7/27/2012 8:47:01 PM , Rating: 1

I'm sorry jason, when i scrolled down i saw it was a very long post and you obviously put alot of work into it. But i didn't read it.

Because nobody cares. Atleast not in the sense of how the legal war is progressing. All the consumer wants is this to end. It's so incredibly immature from both sides. Judges can order bans i wonder why judges can't order trade agreements, and a fine if a company fails to comply. It's so horribly stupifying that i feel sick just suggesting it, but it's the only way out in which both companies can walk away with something intact.

Nothing good will come out of this patent war. There will be no winners. And honestly i feel kinda scared that nobody has the authority to simply step in and say "Stop that, it's silly". Or, atleast, the balls.

RE: I'm sorry

By bupkus on 7/27/2012 11:32:53 PM , Rating: 4

Sorry, but I didn't read your post either.
Why?
Cause nobody cares!

Parent

RE: I'm sorry

By Iaiken on 7/28/2012 12:30:58 AM , Rating: 2

What was that? I was too busy not caring to care...

Parent

Competing with sub-contractors.

By drycrust3 on 7/27/2012 6:27:38 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Apple does do a good job via documents it dug up from Samsung's surrendered data dumps in establishing that circa-2010 Samsung was clearly fixated on copying Apple's hardware, design, and software.

Wait a moment! Doesn't Samsung manufacture at least part of Apple's iPhone? If so, one wouldn't just expect Samsung to have a fixation about the iPhone hardware, design, and software, Samsung would NEED this knowledge. I'm surprised Apple even had to go through Samsung's own emails, Apple could easily have dug up emails between Apple and Samsung showing this "fixation" from their own email servers.
Apple has found that Samsung produce the best displays for their products, so clearly this "fixation" has been to Apple's benefit.

RE: Competing with sub-contractors.

By Nortel on 7/27/2012 6:56:03 PM , Rating: 1

If Dodge made the door handles for Ford cars they would need to know the exact specifications so the handles will actually fit the contours of the door, mechanism, etc...

Dodge may very well, in this example, make the best doors. Ford could have gone to Chrysler, et all, but they went to Dodge for the best quality.

This does not give Dodge the right to take Ford's design for the vehicle and create a duplicate vehicle while changing a few interior buttons and body lines.

Many people have mistakenly stated that Apple would be 'dead' without Samsung. Apple can get the chips/screen/components they require from many other manufacturers. They use Samsung for the best price, quality and ability to deliver in mass quantity. On the Samsung side, they cannot simply stop providing Apple with components... There are legally binding contracts, not to mention Samsung makes huge profits from selling these components to Apple.

Parent

RE: Competing with sub-contractors.

By kleinma on 7/28/2012 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 2

If we are going to compare cars here lets all be thankful car makers aren't the whiny douchbags that are phone makers, because if that were the case we would see car companies suing each other because one holds a patent on 4 wheels and a steering wheel while some other company owns a patent on the gas pedal, and we are all fucked because no one makes a full car with all the features we need.

Parent

RE: Competing with sub-contractors.

By drycrust3 on 7/28/2012 5:12:58 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If Dodge made the door handles for Ford cars

I would hardly classify "door handles" as the motor car equivalent of a smartphone display, a better equivalent would be something fairly substantial, say the chassis of the car. So, using your example, Dodge make the chassis of the car for Ford. but they car competing against lots of other subcontractors as well, so they want to make a better chassis than, their nearest competitor, say "Detroit Chassis Ltd", so that Ford will make them their preferred supplier and not DCL. How can they do this? They ask Ford for information that will help Dodge make the chassis better than DCL, but Ford don't want to tell them too much because Dodge also manufacture their own cars, so they just point to the specifications that they want the chassis built to.
So how can Dodge build a better chassis than DCL? They buy one of the Ford cars from a show room and get all their manufacturing expert engineers to analyse the car, e.g. how much twisting stress does the engine produce, how much flexing does the chassis undergo during acceleration and braking or when hitting a bump. Notice something here? Manufacturing experts analysing Ford's car! Brakes and acceleration parameters! Dodge need to know about how Ford build their car so Dodge can make a better chassis, and the engine, the transmission, and the brakes parameters on the Ford car are discovered. Once Dodge's engineers know this information, they can work out how to make the chassis lighter and stronger and cheaper than DCL do, which not only improves the ride, fuel economy, and profit margin of Ford's car, but makes Dodge Ford's preferred supplier of the car chassis for that model of car.
The downside for Ford, though, is that Dodge is able to use the knowledge gained for their own cars as well, so Dodge soon produce a similar chassis car, with a similarly powered engine and transmission and brakes, and, importantly, a similar profit margin.
So did Dodge have to analyse Ford's car beyond what Ford would tell them to gain a competitive advantage over other chassis suppliers? Yes. Did Ford benefit from this knowledge? Yes. Did Dodge use that knowledge in their own product? Yes.
Now the important question:Did Dodge copy Ford? At this point you can argue yes or no. Yes, because now Dodge know how Ford made the car and that people will buy a car with that sort of engine power, that sort of transmission, and those brakes.
But you can also argue no because they used their own skills to make a chassis that was unique to themselves, which none of their other competitors made, and they simply decided to widen the scope of their manufacturing skills to include a chassis that ends up in a car with their own name on it instead of Ford's.

Parent

I didn't read all 206 pages...

By amanojaku on 7/28/2012 1:24:52 AM , Rating: 4

Much of which was in another language or sealed, but here's my take on what's in there.

1) Samsung checks out the competitors
2) Samsung evaluates what they got right
3) Samsung evaluates what they got wrong
4) Samsung takes a stab at making a better product

Samsung wasn't slavishly copying Apple. In fact, one slide points out ONE icon on the prototype display as being too much like the iPhone. That's one icon design out of 20 on screen. It even pointed out WHY it was too much like the iPhone. It was changed before the phone was released.

Another slide says the iPhone "shapes handsets", but it is pointing out the advantages of Apple's ecosystem, namely Apps (App Store), Multimedia (iTunes Store), and expensive phones (wider profit margins).

One slide mentions copying competitors in general, but it's a harmless statement:

quote:
• Promotion of strengthening and supplementing the HW performance for Multimedia features in other competitors’ smartphones
• HW portion: Easily copied
• Touch screen UI, Display/Video resolution QVGA -> VGA, WVGA, LCD size, multimedia performance, Flash memory capacity, Motion, proximity and light sensors

You don't think Pepsi should substitute salt for sugar, do you? Should Toyota use square wheels? Then why should any of these features be omitted from a smartphone, just because someone else has them, too?

Further on, a slide says "Beat Apple", because "Apple is aggressively growing share". A second bullet point is "HTC is executing at a high level". Earlier on it was mentioned that Nokia used to be the benchmark. Samsung evaluates EVERYONE, not just Apple.

All the evidence really says is Samsung's researchers do their homework. They know that copying Apple is not the solution: beating Apple is the solution, by building a better phone.

Evidence tampering

By ritualm on 7/27/2012 8:34:32 PM , Rating: 2

Whatever the outcome, I don't like either side go so far in destroying emails, even if done under corporate IT policy, during a court case. Makes them look like they have something to hide.

RE: Evidence tampering

By neothe0ne on 7/27/2012 9:26:25 PM , Rating: 1

I hope you're just ignorant, because the emails were destroyed long before the court case. And it's not so much "policy" as automated.

Parent

Hey

By sprockkets on 7/27/12, Rating: 0

RE: Hey

By sprockkets on 7/27/2012 8:17:48 PM , Rating: 2

Wait, the first link shows how fugly the iphone was, BEFORE they saw this:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-claims-Appl...

Parent

Marketing Survey

By drlumen on 7/28/2012 2:09:16 PM , Rating: 2

I guess I just don't understand the point of the article. Every company has to know their competition and study their products and effect in the market place. I would be extremely surprised if Samsung didn't do research on the iphone along with the phones from nokia, ericcson, sony, motorola,...

If all companies created products in a complete vacuum we likely could have products that all look like some 50's era steam punk designs.

Also, as Jason and many other media outlets have (re)stated, Steve Jobs was not above stealing ideas.

A simple solution

By Tony Swash on 7/28/12, Rating: 0

RE: A simple solution

By Cheesew1z69 on 7/28/12, Rating: 0

Essay

By Mk4ever on 7/27/12, Rating: -1

RE: Essay

By Mk4ever on 7/27/12, Rating: -1

RE: Essay

By elleehswon on 7/27/2012 8:06:00 PM , Rating: 3

Reply with a post that adds value/insight to the thread = +1
Reply with incoherent babble/completely unrelated, worthless statistics/complaints= Tony Swash(-1)

Parent

RE: Essay

By Mk4ever on 7/27/12, Rating: -1

By Mk4ever on 7/27/2012 10:34:11 PM , Rating: -1

Thank you for clearing up how the comments system works! I had no idea!

Ok seriously now, it is clear why I got rated 5 for this comment:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13236...

But can you explain why I got a 5 here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=23914...
or here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=20494...
or here?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=18842...
What value did these comments add? Why did I get a zero in this comment (was rated 4 initially, then the next day went down to zero):
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13236...
or this?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13236...
didn't they add value to the discussion?

Comments are supposed to be rated like you explained, but it isn't done this way. As far as I remember, only funny comments were given 6+; no really valuable comment ever got that deserved +6, if I remember correctly. Comments are evaluated according to users's beliefs. Want to check that statement? Check any debate between religion and atheism, and refresh the debate every few minutes, to see all the comments supporting religion going up, and contradictory comments going down. Refresh again later, and see the ratings go in the other direction.

I've been here long enough to know how things go. I was here when this site was a part of anandtech.com. I was here when Kristopher Kubicki used to write news (If you are reading this, Kristopher, I really miss your articles and the quality of news before). Things weren't that way back then.

With all seriousness, and I am sorry to say it, Jason Mick was, and still is, in my opinion, the worst writer in dailytech's history. I am not the only one to think so, there are others who think so too. A few readers declared they'll find other tech news sites if the quality doesn't return to where it was, and were true to their word. Go read some of his older articles, to know how many negative comments there were about his articles. I'm glad he has improved a lot, and I mean A LOT. His articles used to contain all sorts of silly grammar and spelling mistakes (do you realize how painful this is for me, finding mistakes everywhere, considering that I work in quality assurance and control? and yet I kept my mouth shut, hoping he'll improve, which he did), and sometimes unverified sources or even occasionally wrong information misunderstood from the source.

It's not like I don't complement good writing when I see it. Here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=18627...
That was when the site was at its worst point. They got a new news writer, and her articles were and still are excellent till today.

Is my first post related to the article? of course it is. Read it carefully, and you'll find that it is precise and accurate. Writing so many words is a characteristic of a school paper/research, a documentary, or maybe an encyclopedia. But who does that for news? even if you are writing news where some history is necessary, it should be brief. This is not something he is willing to work on, like typos and grammar mistakes; his first articles were reasonable in regards to length. This is something he is doing intentionally, while probably thinking the more the merrier!

As for the second post, it makes sense to get a -1. But see, the thing is, I have a mild case of OCD, so I kept refreshing the page to see how things go with my post. At some point, in less than a minute, the rating changed from 2 to -1. Thinking about it, the only person that can give +6 is the editor. Could it be possible that the editor have the privilege to give a -1? Is it possible that the editor is the one who gave me -1? It is possible. That is why I wrote the second post. I wanted to check my hypothesis. Unfortunately I forgot that replying to a -1 comment automatically grants new comments a 1.

To sum up, I didn't mean to be negative, I really wanted him to look into his style of writing. Also, I don't think you have a good idea of how the comments system is actually (not ideally) being used/abused.

How about this comment for being insightful? Give it time, and let's see how it will be rated, shall we?

Parent