≡ Menu

And the hits just keep coming

The Korea Times, once again with the Apple “patriotic” ruling schtick, is digging up the old debate that iPhone ripped off Samsung’s F700.

There is some choice irony though. The KT copied Psy, calling the article: “Copycatting ― Apple style.”

Trendy titling aside, the only sources for the piece are two unnamed Samsung executives.

And then there is the Apple memo –with a photo– “obtained by The Korea Times,” sourced with the statement:

Now, what appears to be an internal memo from Apple appears to show it was the other way around — the U.S. firm copying designs from Samsung and LG Electronics.

That certainly appears solid.

The F700/iPhone debate was examined thoroughly -actually by an Apple un-friendly site, The Android Community– last year.  And that piece was very well sourced.

You can read it and decide for yourself here.

I must admit, F700 is a catchy name for a phone –one which I hope was trademarked before someone snatches it up. And there has to be some sort of patent for the extent of solid spin being churned out by unbiased media outlets.

Seriously though, regardless of where you stand on the issue, you have to love this comment posted on The Android Community site:

There’s also the possibility that they both ended up with similar designs through a display of the convergence theory in evolution, or “the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages.”

That’s gotta be it.

About the author: Founder/CEO of Meme Communications Korea – www.memecommunications.com

  • Q

    China’s Goophone is ready to file a patent lawsuit vs. iPhone5 and considering blocking sale of iPhone5 in China!

    http://asia.cnet.com/goophone-i5-manufacturers-want-to-sue-apple-when-iphone-launches-62218590.htm

  • cm

    Nowhere in that Apple’s confidential report on the trade show, does Apple say ‘we must copy this phone’. This doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a product comparison between the iPhone (which was still in development) with that of the competitor products that were introduced in the trade show. The iPhone was compared with not just Samsung, but also with LG and Nokia. The fact that they all look similar, with flat front screen with square shape and rounded corners is just coincidence because how else are they going to shape the phones?

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    “Goop Hone”? China’s tech must be highly advanced if it can hone goop! No wonder Apple is copying!

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • madar

    Koreans saying nationalism is bad. Chinese fighting against patient infringement. It’s a brave new world, people, a brave new world.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    IMHO, nationalism is a double edged sword. Could the U.S. have ever been an “Arsenal of Democracy” during WWII if it wasn’t for nationalism?

    The real question is if nationalism is beneficial or harmful. I don’t know why people wave that world around like all forms of it are evil.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    word, not world.

  • FlyingFur

    KT does it again. The picture indicates that the Apple trade report was prepared after the 2006 3GSM conference in Barcelona. Only one problem with that…the F700 was not shown until the 2007 3GSM conference.
    2006
    http://www.gsmarena.com/3gsm_2006_report-review-69p3.php

    2007
    http://www.gsmarena.com/3gsm_2007_report-review-129p4.php

    I’m no Apple fanboi, but…. Steve Jobs introduced the iphone in Jan 2007 at Moscone Center…prior to the 2007 3GSM conference where the F700 was introduced to the public for the first time.

    Perhaps KT needs to unblock the google search engine from its’ intranet so it can properly get the facts before plastering this drivel on the front page.

    Hard for Apple to make a trade show report on an item that was not unveiled until one year later!

    If my date math is wrong, please correct me!

  • brier

    And then there is this hit.
    http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2958983

    I though it was written by a highschool student at first.

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    Goophone has been copying iPhone for ages…

    Just look at Goophones Y5 4S which looks remarkably similar to the iPhone 4S.

    Goophone even used the same name (4S)

    Goophone new that apple would soon release an iPhone 5, so they had the Goophone I5 waiting…

    as soon as Apple made a date to release the iPhone 5, Goophone releases theirs immediately, and now claims to be going to sue Apple?

    What a joke, the Goophone I5 still has the small 3.5″ screen, whereas it is well rumored apples iPhone5 will have a much larger screen (although not as big as Samsung)

    the Goophone I5 the I5 ONLY comes with a regular 3.5-inch display with 940 x 640 pixels and a 5 megapixel camera on the back and 1.3 megapixel camera on the front.

    I would like to see these Chinese sue and lose.

  • SomeguyinKorea

    Let me throw the same wrench into the argument that I did a few weeks back: the LG Prada, a touchscreen smartphone whose release predates that of both the Samsung F700 and the iPhone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

  • SomeguyinKorea

    Let me throw the same wrench into the argument that I did a few weeks back: the LG Prada, a touchscreen smartphone whose release predates that of both the Samsung F700 and the iPhone.

  • cm

    Read how the foreman of the jury, in an interview by gizmodo.com, gets dissected and then gets destroyed. Pay attention to the post by the poster named “Firewheels” on the concept of prior art.

    http://gizmodo.com/apple-vs-samsung/

  • cm

    This comment by Firewheels just about sums up what is wrong with Apple’s patents.

    ———————–
    You’re suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn’t it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?

    If, however, you’re suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid.

    Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due.

  • Barreira

    cm#12

    Could’a would’a should’a – sings every losing side in a jury trial…

    But don’t worry, Samsung is represented by Quinn Emanuel, well known for its slash-and-burn tactics, and skilled in burying adversaries on paper until they cry uncle, or run out of money (Their advertisement tag line is “Justice may be blind, but she still sees it our way 92.3 percent of the time”) – Basically, the best killing machine/corporate hired gun money can buy.

    If there was jury error, they will dig it up and ensure years of courtroom struggle (all of it billable, hooray).

  • SomeguyinKorea

    #13,

    Interesting argument. I’m curious to know what a lawyer would have to say about it.

  • tinyflowers

    I don’t know if Apple ripped off the F700, but its design was definitely made public before the iphone. From Samsung’s trial brief:

    One of these designs became the Samsung F700 phone, which was the subject of a Korean design registration application in December 2006, a month before Apple unveiled the iPhone. Ex. 7 (DX 519). Tellingly, Apple at first included Samsung‘s F700 in its indiscriminant “copying” allegations, but later withdrew its infringement charges once Samsung‘s prior, independent creation left Apple no choice but to concede that its copying accusations against that device were false.

  • tinyflowers

    the only sources for the piece are two unnamed Samsung executives.

    And then there is the Apple memo –with a photo– “obtained by The Korea Times,”

    That certainly appears solid.

    Bobby, you should try doing some research before laying on the snark and looking stupid. It’s been well established that the F700 predates the iphone. Your adroidcommunity link is woefully out of date.

    That slide comparing the iphone and f700 is legit and has already been reported by multiple sources weeks ago. It’s old news. You would know this if you were actually following the trial. You can see the entire Apple document here:
    http://www.appleinsider.com/print/12/08/15/apple_document_says_iphone_set_the_tone_of_trade_show_it_did_not_attend.html

    There’s also a slide comparing the iphone with the LG Prada in there, as well as a few other products that resemble the iphone. Check out the Meizu miniOne.

  • http://www.busanhaps.com Bobby McGill

    Thanks tinyflowers. Can’t win the snark wars all the time, but as an occasional blogger getting something interesting up on the fly, I can win the “looking stupid” wars quite often.

    Appreciate the links.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Interesting…

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/smartphones/20947/iphone-5-component-supply-challenges-could-threaten-apples-empire

    Would love to hear this conversation…

    Tim Cook: Hey, Lee Jae-yong. How about that shellacking in San Jose, huh? No hard feelings?

    Lee Jae-yong: [Silent stare].

    TC: Say, you know the iPhone 5 is coming out soon, right? You know, we might need, oh, say 25 million of those screens and CPUs you guys make so well. Some price as usual, right?

    LJY: [Silent stare].

    TC: You know we tried to get Sharp and LG to make the screen and Taiwan Semiconductor to make the CPU, but they just don’t make them as well as you guys do, as quickly or at the price we want to pay. So, no hard feelings, huh?

    LJY: [Relenting sigh, with the stank eye].

  • Barreira

    WK #19,
    Usually, factory vs. brand, brand wins.
    Also, methinks if Samsung had monopoly power in the component market, it would have used it already to charge higher prices….

    But I am not a telecom engineer…. Does anyone out there know whether Samsung is a sole supplier of anything critical (to 4G LTE, for example)?

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Barreira,

    The 4G stuff, if the iPhone 5 is gonna have it, will likely be supplied by someone like Qualcomm.

    For a CONSUMER product brand wins. You need to add that corollary. In b2b sales company execs can give two sh*ts about brand. Apple/Samsung component interaction is purely b2b transactions.

  • Barreira

    #21,
    “Brands” sell unique or differentiated products.
    “Factories” sell fungible or replaceable products, parts, or services.

    Ceteris paribus, Brands will move to other factories if a given factory is too expensive or otherwise not to their liking.

    That’s all I meant.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Barreira,

    You’re still not getting it yet. If I was Joe Schmo consumer then genuine brand General Mills cereal may matter to me more than the supermarket’s plain generic label cereal. Now, if I was John Smith CEO of such and such multinational corporation, then industrial pipe for my refining plant from one manufacture vs. another doesn’t matter so much just as long as my price, quality and delivery standards are up to my requirements. Companies, when they buy for themselves make much more educated and value-added decisions vs. consumers who use “brands” as a short-cut to figuring out such things like value and quality.

  • Barreira

    >>You’re still not getting it yet.

    That must be it. ;-)

  • Avaast
  • Q

    Forbes reported Here’s How Apple’s Reputation Dived After the Samsung Verdict:

    Worse, for Apple, the reaction against the brand is coming from its own fan base. Following the verdict, a significant proportion of comments on the Apple Facebook page, were strong reactions against Apple’s use of the patent laws for what was seen as trivial innovation.

    “Prior to the verdict, posts on Apple’s Facebook page covered a range of topics, including technical queries, questions about the release of products, complaints about price and product performance, and general messages of support and praise. In the week following the Apple/Samsung verdict, 40% of the posts specifically referred to the trial. Following the trial, there was a large increase in negative posts on the Apple Facebook page. Despite the vitriol in some of the posts criticizing Apple for its patent action against Samsung, few defended the brand.”

    Negative views on Apple rose from 25% to 80% after the verdic.

  • Q

    Bloomberg reported HTC Patents Challenged by Apple Probably Valid, Judge Say:

    Apple Inc. (AAPL) may face a difficult task invalidating two HTC Corp. (2498) patents for data transmission in wireless devices, a U.S. trade judge said at a trial that could lead to import bans on the newest iPad and next version of the iPhone.

    The hits just keep coming…

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Interesting… there seems like some decoupling is going on as well…

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/09/07/2012090700903.html

  • Arghaeri

    “Brands” sell unique or differentiated products.
    “Factories” sell fungible or replaceable products, parts, or services.

    Brands sell nothing, they market stuff.
    Factories sell nothing, they make stuff.

  • Pingback: So, what’s been going on between Samsung and Apple?