subject: Samsung R522 Battery [print this page] Samsung Internal Paper: Do as Apple Samsung Internal Paper: Do as Apple
In the U.S. patent process from Apple (AAPL 619.86 -0.17%) and Samsung (280 0.48%), an internal analysis of the South Koreans has emerged that could undermine their position at the jury. In the paper from March 2010 to around 130 pages detail the operation of the iPhone and the Samsung smartphone Galaxy S compared.
Samsung throws in the apple before going for more than a year patent dispute with its smart phones and tablet computers and design features of the iPhone and iPad to have copied. This could yesterday in the court documents recorded document supply in the eyes of the nine jurors the "smoking gun" - a decisive proof of their decision. In the internal comparison analysis are not only numerous weaknesses in the Galaxy software of light - it also follows the explicit recommendation on how to improve their own products with solutions from the iPhone.(Samsung AA-PB9NC6B)
This is partly due to small details such as the display of the number of outstanding sites on the web browser or the ability to copy a word by tapping on it. These were features that should be taken from the iPhone, is the conclusion of Samsung employees.
"Between Heaven and Earth"
The appearance of the document is the second shock for Samsung in two days. On Monday, an e-mail with sharp utterances of Samsung's mobile chief JK Shin was accepted as evidence.
The manager there said, among other things, the iPhone, Samsung have a "design crisis" revealed. He often get to hear the proposal, "something like the iPhone 'to build. The difference in the operation of the iPhone and the Samsung Omnia model is like "between heaven and earth."(Samsung AA-PB9NC6W)
Samsung's chief strategist Justin Denison tried in court on Tuesday to downplay the impact of these statements. It should have been deliberately exaggerated rhetoric to arouse the people, he said, according to U.S. media reports.
Possible impact on overall impression
The two documents must not affect the process mandatory. Because the procedure refers specifically to other patented features and design patterns, such as the basic shape of the iPhone and Apple Tablet of a protected design pattern. Apple must prove, inter alia, a likelihood of confusion.
Samsung tries to convince the jury to contrast the fact that the innovations came not from Apple and the U.S. competitor makes use of the South Koreans at the patents for mobile technology. Despite these specific issues, making these two papers, the Samsung, however, encourage jurors to the general impression that the company had copied Apple.
