Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’

“Apple Inc. sued rival Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) claiming that Samsung’s Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablet ‘slavishly’ copies the iPhone and iPad, according to court papers,” Dan Levine reports for Reuters.

“Galaxy products use Google’ Android operating system, the lawsuit says, which directly competes with Apple’s mobile software,” Levine reports. “However, Apple’s claims against Samsung focus on Galaxy’s design features, such as the look of its screen icons.”

Levine reports, “The lawsuit, filed on Friday, alleges Samsung violated Apple’s patents and trademarks. ‘This kind of blatant copying is wrong,’ Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said in a statement… Apple is bringing 16 claims against Samsung, including unjust enrichment, trademark infringement and 10 patent claims. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, 11-1846.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Jen” for the heads up.]

Related article:
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011

47 Comments

  1. When I firsgalaxy galaxy tab commercial I looked up at the screen seeing fingers type something on an apple iOS keyboard I kept whatching because I thought it was apple! The screen shot tricked me into thinking it was an iPad, that is proof

      1. Don’t worry- I smoked a bong and read his statement. I will translate his stonerish for ya guys…

        “I woke up one morning and wake and baked. man- I got so stoned, and my Xbox got the red ring of death so I put down my bowl of apple jacks and put on some old ren and stimpy reruns. The commercial for a galaxy tab came on and I realized at the end of the commercial it was a samsung product. But they had me going because the whole time I thought it was an iPAD!? LOLZ Silly stoned me (:”

        better?

  2. One of the big problems with patent suits is that they take so long to be resolved. By the time any punishment is handed down, the damage is done and the industry has already moved on.

    1. Notice that Apple always goes after the entity that uses Android, not Google. This is probably because Google does not derive any direct revenue from Android. The hardware makers who use Android do.

      It is also probably easier and faster to gain traction on specific examples of hardware that infringe, rather than sue Google for the entire Android platform.

    2. Apple is going after the low-hanging fruit, first. Besides, without the hardware, the Android software is meaningless. In addition, Android does not make any money for Google directly, so it is not as attractive for a lawsuit.

  3. I’m surprised it took Apple this long to go after Samsung. When I first saw their Galaxy phones, I immediately thought they were iPhone knock-offs, Samsung didn’t even try to hide this. I can’t imagine a court will not view this in the same way, and I hope it keeps Samsung from continuing its cheap bottom-feeding tactics.

          1. Whether Apple want the money or not, the court need to know that ‘damage’ has been done. They see ‘damage’ in monetary terms. MAR is right: it is pointless suing on passing off or trade mark grounds until money has been made.

  4. If you can’t beat them sue them. How pathethic is Crapple feeling the pressure from Android and soon Windows Phone and it’s going to be deja vu omce again in the mobile war.

    1. If you can’t beat them sue them?? lol clearly you jest!

      Apple has a right to protect their intellectual property. Apple stated from the get go that they plan to protect their intellectual property. Now, Apple is finally following through with their promises. All of their hard work is not going to be just given away to Samsung or any other thieves of Apple’s properties.

      Kudos anyway for your obvious flamebait.

  5. The thing that amazes me, is that common sense things, can be patented or copywrited…. ?
    It seems to me, that the real problem is the US patent system. It seems to me that if you have an idea, you can patent it, even if you don’t specify a proven product and even if it is just plain common sense.

    1. Right, if we were to ask for specifics, you would have nothing to say. When the first iPhone came out in ’07, the industry collectively shit its pants… And you’re claiming that , what… the technology in the iPhone was common sense?

    2. It is only common sense after the fact. The wheel is common sense now. Of course! It’s round! Duh! What else would you use? BUT… at some point in time it was a revelation.

      In the same way: a nice array of attractive icons arranged in a grid, just tap to open, just swipe to see more, press/hold to arrange — Of course! Common sense! But I used Windows Mobile for a decade and they never had anything close to that. Not within a light year or so. And Google would have done a BlackBerry knock-off… except they had a mole on the board who told them what to copy. And now it’s common sense! After the fact! But Apple was the inventor and so rightfully owns the concept.

    3. I think you have the wrong bull by the horns.
      It is common sense that if you have a device that is all screen that you would go as close to the screen size and shape as possible and round the corners to soften the design.
      It’s common sense that if you wish to trim the device, that you would do it at the edge, possibly Crome, imitation.

      I wasn’t having a go at apple, just a system which allows such things. Just look at some of the law suites against Apple.

      I know, I’ve got an idea for a time machine, don’t yet know how to make it, but I can give you a drawing. And it’s my idea if I patent it……. isn’t it?

      I am a fan of Apple’s design and more importantly their ability to design that which I didn’t know I wanted. But If you allow patents on common sense, you are not even doing apple a favour.

      1. @Rj

        Yes, you can patent your time machine, but if you make no profit from it then the patent is worthless, because it protects nothing. I can still make my time machine, that works by a different principle (which I patent) and I will not infringe your patent and likewise, my patent, if granted will protect my invention from litigation, even by you.

Leave a Reply to Arnold Ziffel Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.