A not so brief explanation of why I feel like I should be distancing myself from Apple for what has finally become apparent to me as an attempt to tyrannically control the smartphone market:
Just finished reading all of the dockets, including patents from Apple and Samsung, in the Apple v Samsung case. I found the evidence presented by Apple interesting in that there is only ONE direct similarity and that is the music player icon of Samsung is exactly the same as the iTunes trademark of Apple. That is in all seriousness the only direct similarity between the two, look at it. They are the same icon. All of the other similarities cited in Apples complaint are different in their own way, much the same as clamshell phones ten years ago. These types of similarities are best explained through the VCR Analogy in the first circuit ruling of the Lotus v Borland case of '95 in which the court explained that the buttons of a VCR are a necessary method of operating the machine and therefore cannot be protected by copywrite law. The true problem is in our opinion of copyrightability, which was once fought in the Computer Assoc. Int'l Inc. v Altai Inc. case. Computer programs are copywrite protected as literary works, so the real question is simple. Does Samsung's use of rounded rectangular icons with a tighter radius than the rounded rectangular icons of iOS constitute nonliteral copyright infringement? No. The difference is very much like comparing Windows to OSX icons. Does similar use of color and graphics in those icons constitute nonliteral copywrite infringement? Unfortunately yes it does, but this is like comparing Gravenstein to Fuji apples and in my opinion makes Apple look like a whiny bitch. I also read Hon. Judge Birss QC ruling in the UK Samsung v Apple case over the Galaxy tab, he made a fair ruling citing that though there were similarities between the iPad and Galaxy tab, they were not similar enough to warrant a lawsuit for patent infringement because a company should not be forced to make a product radically dissimilar from another competing product just for the sake of difference. Its like automobiles. Every maker has a hatchback, a compact, a sedan, etc. They may look similar, but they are in fact different. No car maker has ownership of the hatchback model just because they made it first. Judge Birss cited several cases of touchscreen computing patent lawsuits from Denmark and Germany in his ruling, none of which ruled infringement had taken place. The cliff's notes of the S. Korea Apple v Samsung case was not interesting at all, but also seemed fair since both parties were found equally at fault for infringing upon UI and platform similarities. Not having the legal know how makes it difficult to pinpoint what went wrong in the recent US case, but its pretty evident by the jurors testimonies after the verdict in comparison to the original complaint and the jury's two, very different, awards that this was a case that should have been decided by a panel of judges, not a handful of jurors who sought council from a foreman with limited and biased knowledge of the patent process who openly admits to padding the award to make an example of Samsung. This will quite possibly end up in supreme court, but I foresee a reverse of the ruling. Hopefully Koh will also notice the discrepancies and throw out the jury's award when she makes her final review in Sept. Apple should owe Samsung legal damages and Samsung should owe Apple for their blatant ripoff of the iTunes trademark logo.
