Hasta La Gadget!

In the Apple vs Samsung court case going on this month it appears that the iPhone company has struck a heavy blow with expert witness Peter Bressler. This man is a former President of the Industrial Designers Society of America and a current fellow of that group, a co-author of over 60 design and utility patents, and an active faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches integrated product design classes. Because of this list of achievements and accolades, Bressler’s words as witness in this court case will certainly ring true to the jury. In this case, Apple calling Bressler to the stand to testify is very, very bad news for Samsung.

What Bressler has been asked is whether the devices Apple is presenting are similar enough to the patents they own that they’d could be considered infringing. Some of the devices brought up in the questioning are the following – each of these device names are linked back to our reviews of said devices so you can get a closer look if you’d like:

• the original iPhone
• Samsung Galaxy S 4G
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE
• Samsung Infuse 4G
• iPad 1 and 2

You can also see some comparisons between the original Samsung Galaxy S and the iPhone 4 here: iPhone 4 hands-on Review as well as here: white iPhone 4 hands-on.

When questioned by Apple, Bressler “walked the jury through” three iOS device patents and described the patents in detail to the jury according to The Verge. One patent showed off the iPad’s flat face, rounded corners, and black border under the tablet’s front glass panel. Another of the three patents described the flat front face of the iPhone, while a third described the rounded corners and bezel that existed in the first iPhone released to the market.

Bressler’s testimony compared the iPhone patents to the Samsung Galaxy S 4G. Bressler made it clear that he felt Samsung’s design to be not so fabulous when it comes to originality when it comes to being viewed by “regular consumers.” Bressler noted specifically:

“It’s my opinion that this phone, the design of this phone would be considered substantially the same” – Bressler

Similar connections were made when Bressler continued while Apple’s representation showed their iPad patent set side-by-side with the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE specifically. Bressler pointed out a number of “alternative designs” for tablets (a collection of tablets that we’re trying to get a list of now – hold tight), showing how each of them were “clearly different” from Apple’s iPad and each of the patents that surround it.

Samsung was allowed to cross-examine Bressler, showing the industrial design expert at least four different examples of “prior art” that they felt were similar to the iPhone’s front face. Bressler did not agree with Samsung’s line of questioning, saying Samsung’s comparison was an “improper analysis.” Bressler noted that these comparisons (we must assume they looked something like this) could not be taken with only one single, straight-on image as Samsung appeared to be relying on.

Samsung then spoke (represented by Charles Verhoeven in this case, by the way), about the flat, flush glass face of the iPhone as well as the original iPhone’s unique bezel. He showed the jury two devices at the same time as questioning Bressler about them: the Infuse 4G and the Galaxy S 4G.

For the Infuse 4G, Samsung showed that the glass face is not completely flush as each iPhone has been since the first (as seen above.) For the Galaxy S 4G, Samsung contended that the device’s bezel “flares” when viewed from the bottom or the top of the phone.

Bressler was having none of it, saying that the patents at hand did not work in the way Samsung was suggesting. Instead, Bressler said, they had to take into account the “ordinary observer” – aka the “regular consumer” as well as the “overall impression” the devices presented.

Stay tuned as the Apple vs Samsung case continues and millions (if not billions) of dollars are held up in the air, ready to drop into the wallet of the winning manufacturer of lovely smart devices. Check the timeline to see several stories leading up to this point in time as well – don’t miss a thing!

Apple’s expert witness says the magic words: “substantially the same” is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

This month the epic court war of Apple vs Samsung is taking place and the newest battle is in: Apple is presenting a set of slides which accuse Samsung of straight up copying their designs for mobile device icons. In each of the following slides (included in this post) you’ll find Apple’s presentation (via CNET) to be quite convincing in some areas and perhaps a bit of a reach in others. It’s all up to your own senses, of course, until the jury is able to reach a conclusion of their own in this massive and multi-faceted case.

First have a peek at what could be an undeniable theft or, if Samsung is able to convince the jury, an incredible coincidence. This is the Telephone app icon for the iPhone – which still exists today – as it appeared on the first iPhone. Below the image, as it is with the rest of the examples as well, Apple shows a collection of Samsung devices with their icon of choice for the Samsung Android version of the Telephone app. Green icon with a white landline-type phone aiming upward and to the right.

Next is the iTunes trademark as compared to Samsung’s choice of a CD with a music note in front of it. This is a bit of an odd one because Apple’s icon for iOS (on the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch) is actually more of a music note in a white circle than it is an iTunes logo. Apple presents their original trademark application image for the iTunes logo to the right of the mobile icon for comparison to Samsung’s collection below.

Next is the Settings icon from iOS being compared to the Samsung Settings icon on everything from the Captivate to the Galaxy S II. One might ask one’s self why the gear is being claimed by Apple when it should be clear that the base Android system the Samsung devices in question were built on also had a gear for its own shortcut to Settings. Have a peek first at the Apple comparison to Samsung, then to an icons pack from an early version of Android: version 1.6 Donut.

There’s a Notes app in both the iPhone and each of the Samsung devices Apple is showing in this next slide. This is where things get a bit more suspicious once again as not only are the colors replicated rather closely, but the lined yellow paper looks the same as well. Why on earth neither company went for the more obvious sticky-notes type icon, we cannot say!

The Photos icon comparison between iOS and the Galaxy line of Samsung smartphones is a bit odd as there is indeed a flower in both of the options – but they’re sized quite differently. Apple’s icon is a clear image of a sunflower on a blue sky background while Samsung chose to have flower pedals shown with two photos of those pedals sitting on to, with a play button on top of the stack as well.

Finally there’s the Contacts icon as presented by Apple (as it is with the rest of these slides) with the original iOS icon up top and a collection of Samsung Galaxy smartphones below. Though the color scheme here isn’t the same, it’s quite clear that both of these groups grabbed inspiration from the same source. OR that one saw the other at some point and decided to make good.

Make your own judgements here and let us know if you feel that Apple or Samsung – or both – were wronged in how similar their mobile device icons look to one another. It’s no small accusation saying that a design was copied directly from your own, and we hope neither company is taking any of this situation lightly.

Have a peek at the timeline below to see additional insights into this case and stay tuned as Apple and Samsung cut each-other to shreds over the coming weeks and months.

Samsung “icon theft” images shown by Apple is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Over the past few weeks we’ve been watching NASA’s work with their newest Mars Rover to make its way to the red planet. Three hundred and fifty million miles away from Earth, Curiosity landed on the planet after having worked through the sequence outlined by the group over the past few weeks. This mission was launched on the 26th of November, 2011, and has make its landing here on the 5th of August, 2012 with flying colors.

The entire sequence of events went exactly as planned as NASA live-streamed the entire event via their own set of feeds pushed through USTREAM. Of course one of the most interesting subjects surrounding this whole event was the delay between when the ship nears the atmosphere and when the actual rover touches down on the planet. Three ships have moved toward, past, and/or into Mars, those being named MRO, Odyssey, and MSL. The MSL unit is the one that contained Curiosity, and both Odyssey and MRO were sent to collect information about the landing of MSL’s payload – again, Curiosity.

Heartbeat Tones, as they’re called, let the crew know that all was well, and inside the “7 Minutes of Terror” tensions were high. Of course no matter how well prepared a crew such as this could have been, tensions would have been through the roof. Months of preparation and millions of dollars were already in the project and all there was to do inside the last set of minutes was wait.

“We have venting” – cruise Stage Separation – five minutes to entry – all was going well, it seemed.

And for 7 full minutes there was barely a sound save for the brief reports – then it happened. “We are processing data from the Odyssey. We have a connection but we don’t have any data yet. There we go.”

At this point the rover had already landed – in fact it’d landed right at the moment when NASA started to receive signals that the ship had entered the atmosphere. The vehicle flew down toward the surface of the planet at mach 2 – “parachute deployed” – “we are decelerating – 150 meters per second.”

Needless to say, the cheers got louder and more joyous each announcement of a plateau. “We are in powered flight. 500 meters from planet. Stand by for skycrane. 40 meters altitude. Skycrane has started. Expecting final cut shortly.” Each announcement became more exciting.

And then there was an explosion of cheers – it’d worked! Touchdown!

All was well, the Curiosity Rover had landed successfully. Joy for all and the work could start once again. Now we all get to have a peek at the red planet once again. Have a look at our timeline of this event and stick around SlashGear for big findings from the rover for some time to come.

NASA Mars Rover Curiosity makes a perfect landing is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Apple’s draconian sanction demands for Samsung have been rejected, with the Apple vs Samsung judge refusing to grant an early victory and instead waiting to hear from top Cupertino execs today. Following Samsung’s publication of rejected evidence, much to the court’s fury, Apple had insisted that the only rightful judgement was that its design patents – and accusations of Samsung infringement – be upheld. Justice Lucy Koh failed to agree, however, instead laying down the law to Samsung with regards what “Sony-style” design evidence it could cite. Meanwhile, senior VP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller and senior VP of iOS software Scott Forstall are expected to testify first thing on Friday morning.

Samsung had strongly protested against Apple’s requested punishment, describing it as “an affront to the integrity of the jury.” Part of Apple’s argument had been that, while the jury itself was barred from reviewing press about the ongoing case, individual members could be externally pressured by family and friends who had seen details of Samsung’s unofficial arguments. Apple’s demands were “frivolous,” Samsung concluded.

Although a ruling directly in Apple’s favor was apparently out of the question, Judge Koh was quick to lay down the rules to Samsung once more, FOSS Patents reports. She listed the five reasons believed to be behind Samsung’s intentions with the “Sony-style” evidence and excerpts from testimony by ex-Apple designer Shin Nishibori:

“(1) [to] rebut Apple’s creation theory that the iPhone was ‘revolutionary’; (2) to rebut allegations of copying; (3) to establish that the industry at large was moving toward the basic design concepts; (4) to prove design functionality; and (5) to rebut allegations of willfulness” Judge Lucy Koh, San Jose Court

Of those five, only reason number four will be permitted, Koh instructed Samsung. The South Korean company will be allowed to cite an internal Apple email regarding iPhone design functionality, along with sections of an expert report which mentions Sony designs as evidence of the functional nature of iPhone design.

Schiller and Forstall are expected to be quizzed by the court over the inspiration for the iPhone and iPad’s design, along with details of high-level discussions regarding Samsung’s alleged infringement of design patents. Meanwhile there will also be questions around Samsung’s counter-claim, which argues Apple refused to license Samsung patents over 3G technology for the iPhone and iPad.

Apple’s Samsung sanctions denied as Schiller and Forstall testify is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

From 2001: A Space Odyssey to “Sony Style Designs”, Samsung is having some fairly bad luck, it seems, with finding designs that Apple may have been inspired by for their iPhone and iPad devices. This is all part of a court case going on in the United States in which Samsung is being accused of creating devices that are so similar to Apple’s products that they feel they’ve been robbed, so to speak. The case centers around patent infringement, prior art, and the idea that one company may be inspired by another without “copying” them without mercy.

Today’s revelation comes in a sheet submitted by Judge Koh, in charge of this case, which includes several prior art examples that Samsung says came before the iPad and/or the iPhone which Apple must have been inspired by. We’ve seen most if not all of these examples before, leading up to this case, but with one swoop, the judge appears to have dismissed the lot of them. Above what you’re seeing is a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey in which an IBM-made concept tablet computer – or a display, rather – is shown in full use. Below is the full list of dismissals shown today.

The Blue Glow patent listed in the first row is one in which Samsung is attempting to show that they did not copy Apple’s rubber-band scrolling effect in iOS. Most of these items have been dismissed because they do not successfully match up with what Koh sees as close enough to Apple’s design for their mobile mainstays OR they’re not being seen as important to the proceedings.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if Apple’s designs had anything to do with the designs in 2001, for example, if Samsung straight up copied Samsung. That’s not necessarily what’s happening here, but Koh is essentially that Samsung will not be allowed to point fingers at other designs to get the law off their own back.

Check out the timeline below to see additional pieces of this story as the tech trial of the summer continues!

[via AppleInsider]

Samsung evidence dismissed in droves in Apple case is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.