More Internal Samsung Docs Show Love, Desire to Copy iOS

| News

Samsung Internal Documents Copy Apple

New internal Samsung documents that indicate the Korean company based its device hardware and software on Apple designs were made public Friday as part of the patent litigation between the two mobile device giants. The latest documents come just three days after Apple successfully admitted another set of internal Samsung documents supporting the same claim.

Two Samsung usability studies were introduced by Apple during Friday’s testimony. The first dealt with Samsung’s “Vibrant” smartphone, codenamed Behold 3, while the other discussed a preproduction model of Samsung’s iPad competitor, the Galaxy Tab. Both studies looked at the way Apple implemented gestures and the over-scroll rubber band effect and compared it to Samsung’s own implementations.

A simple comparison to a competitor’s product is certainly not verboten, but, copying another company’s patented designs and user interface concepts can be. As it turned out, products released by Samsung after the internal release of the usability study implemented the gesture and over-scroll features just as Apple had.

Apple expert witness Ravin Balakrishnan, a computer science professor at the University of Toronto, testified on the meaning of the Samsung documents:

It’s very clear to me from the documents that Samsung studied this problem, recognized limitations of its current design in comparison to what the iPhone and iPad were doing, and recognized that the iPhone and iPad had a better solution…In subsequent versions of those phones in the market, that exact same functionality has been implemented.

In its cross examination of Mr. Balakrishnan, Samsung showed the court several product demonstration videos, arguing that the allegedly infringing implementations were not present in all of Samsung’s post-iOS products.

Mr. Balakrishnan then clarified that, while indeed not every aspect of Samsung’s software allegedly infringed on Apple patents, there were clear examples of infringement in Samsung’s photo gallery viewer, web browser, and contact manager.

The over-scroll implementation is not just for visual aesthetics, Mr. Balakrishnan further testified. It was important for Apple to develop and desirable for Samsung to obtain because it solves two user interface problems: “freezing” and “desert fog.”

“Freezing” occurs when users incorrectly believe that something has gone wrong with their device when they attempt, and expect, to scroll beyond the edge of an image or document. “Desert Fog” refers to the situation where users inadvertently scroll beyond the boundaries of a page and are unable to easily navigate back to the content. By “bouncing” the page at the scrollable margins, a clear signal is given to the user that they have reached a boundary.

Once Apple popularized this and other useful technology, competitors like Samsung felt they had no choice but to add it themselves, perhaps not expecting to wind up in their current state of lengthy and expensive litigation.

The patent infringement trial between Apple and Samsung is now nearing the end of Apple’s witness phase, which should conclude by early next week. Samsung will then have the opportunity to present its own witnesses over the course of the coming week or two.

[via CNET]

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

5 Comments Leave Your Own

mrmwebmax

+

Once Apple popularized this and other useful technology, competitors like Samsung felt they had no choice but to add it themselves, perhaps not expecting to wind up in their current state of lengthy and expensive litigation.

Interface technologies like over-scroll can, and should, be patented and defended. Who knows how many Apple R&D dollars went into perfecting it? Something like over-scroll only seems obvious after someone creates it. Samsung should have put their efforts into creating something better.

wab95

Though not a good day for Samsung, it is not a ‘Houston, we have a problem’ - level situation. Certainly not yet.

Samsung would do well, I should think, to have a contingency plan for what to do should this case go against them, and drag US public sentiment down with it, and should start now with a ‘hearts and minds’ charm offensive aimed at their US consumer base.

nan

This stuff is a shared cultural language, and the users who need it are as responsible for the UI innovation as the folks at Apple who came up with a good design. They all got paid well, and Apple frankly monetises their work just fine.

It’s hard to imagine that applying coercive state force to UI development is going to help anyone. Even Apple loses in the long term; the importance of an idea is what can be built on it.

mrmwebmax

+

This stuff is a shared cultural language, and the users who need it are as responsible for the UI innovation as the folks at Apple who came up with a good design. They all got paid well, and Apple frankly monetises their work just fine.

It?s hard to imagine that applying coercive state force to UI development is going to help anyone. Even Apple loses in the long term; the importance of an idea is what can be built on it.

End users of iPhones had absolutely nothing—zero, zip, nada—to do with the UI innovation of iOS. That’s just a baseless claim and wishful thinking, right in line with your “shared cultural language” claim. If it’s a shared cultural language, why did it take Apple to invent it? If its a shared cultural language, why didn’t scrolling in Windows feature the rubber band effect before iPhone?

As for how applying “coercive state force to UI development” can help anyone? Simple: If all UI development merely copies Apple, then innovation slows. Let Samsung create their own “shared cultural language” and actually contribute to UI development, not merely steal it from others.

Finally, Apple was perfectly willing to license its technology to Samsung, but Samsung ignored the offer:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/08/10/apple-licensing-offer-to-samsung-quantified-in-patent-case/

jfbiii

the users who need it are as responsible for the UI innovation as the folks at Apple who came up with a good design

Apple should patent the process of obtaining input from non-existent focus groups brainstorming non-existent problems for products that don’t yet exist. They could license that for a fortune!

Log-in to comment