[Joeri]

The question isn't whether samsung decided to build iphone-like phones. Everyone can see that they did, the galaxy devices look way too similar. The question is whether they directly copied it, and apple has legal protection. I don't think they do. I don't think you can claim that samsung directly copied the iphone, either in general or in specifics.

First, in general. Did apple invent the "all touch" category? No. The earliest all-touch smartphone with on-screen keyboard is IBM's Simon, from 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon . Did Apple then invent finger-friendly glossy UI's with capacitive touch screens? No. See for example the LG KE850 (prada phone), which was first demoed a year before the iphone: http://www.oopshi.nl/images/ke850-prada-oopshi-nl.jpg . Note that LG threatened to sue Apple for copying the prada phone's design: http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/

The iphone's grid layout that launches apps is merely an evolution in a long history, starting at the newton, through palm, back to apple: http://www.applegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/inter... . I used to have a palmpilot pro, and you can clearly tell that the iphone's designers learned a lot from that UI. So, when talking about the general design, there's nothing in there that originated in the iphone. So, if there's nothing that apple can claim ownership on in the general case, let's look at specifics.

Apple isn't suing for the general UI design, because they learned early on that it isn't protected when they tried the same thing to protect the mac interface (which they themselves copied from Xerox): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... . Instead they're suing for the distinctive design of the icons on the iphone. And, well, I don't think they're copied. Inspired by, yes, but direct copies they are not: http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4dadf745ccd1d5aa3f1... .

If anything can be learned from all of this it's that history is written by the winners, and that everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. If it were me, I'd do away with patents entirely. No point to them really, not if you look at how preciously little there is that's actually original in any innovative product.

[chicagobob]

Here is another analysis that I think is much more balanaced than any of the ones you linked to: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...

Here is his conclusion:

"Taken as a group, it feels like a remarkably solid case — Samsung can’t just up and countersue Apple with its own patents and hope to walk away with a handshake and a cross-license because of the various trademark, trade dress, and design patent claims. How the company decides to deal with those issues remains to be seen; there’s no question in my mind that Samsung designed TouchWiz to look and feel as much like iOS as possible, and then marketed it as such. . . . . . . Depending on the strength of Samsung’s promised reply and countersuit, my guess is that Apple might be willing to eventually settle the patent claims but will push the trademark and trade dress claims as far as it can — if Apple loses those it’s open season on the iOS aesthetic. You can bet Steve Jobs and Tim Cook aren’t about to let that happen."

[Joeri]

First of all, I didn't link to any analysis, just to a bunch of screenshots. Screenshots aren't balanced one way or the other.

But, on the link you posted. The conclusion in that article is actually a fair conclusion to make. It's just not one I agree with. The trade dress claim hinges on consumers being confused between the products, and I don't see it happening. If you can find me one person, anywhere, who bought a galaxy thinking it was an iphone, I'll admit fault and move on.

Any way, my point was more generic than that. Basically, I think everything that's in the iphone had been done before, so the only thing apple can lay claim to is the combination, not any of the parts. Take for example the white slanted phone on the green glossy background. On the face of it, it sounds ironclad, since it's an unusual and unique style of phone icon, right? But, then you look at the skype icon from 2006, and surprise, it's clearly the same icon, except with a round border. You could just as easily argue that apple copied skype's phone icon when they designed the iphone icon. Given enough time, and google image search, you can do the same thing for every one of the iphone's icons, and for any part of its design.

In the end, you end up at the heart of the matter: how different does a phone have to be before it's no longer infringing according to apple? If samsung changes two icons and uses a gray bezel, does that magically make it ok, even if it would still have the "feel" of an iphone? Sounds wishy-washy logic to me. Still though, I do wish samsung hadn't copied the iphone to such a degree. It cheapens a phone which could have stood on its own merits.