20 things Samsung copied from Apple

Written by

Nicklas Lind put together a nice list with pics. Seriously, it shouldn’t be this easy folks.



  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    I have a few issues with this:

    5 – bogus, as noted previously. Samsung’s wall stopped and the store they were in had the icons.

    10 – Apple didn’t invent the smart cover in the first place (http://johncblandii.com/2011/08/the-smart-cover-another-apple-non-innovation.html) but beyond that, the Tab didn’t have smart covers by Samsung. AnyMode did these on their own: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20080684-17/samsung-clears-up-ipad-2-smart-cover-controversy/.

    The images aren’t to scale. The Samsung phones are much larger than the iPhone equivalents and the Tab 10.1 is considerably different (16:9) than the iPad.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI yahoo-X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI

      People always bring up scale and aspect ratio as proof that Samsung didn’t copy. But it’s a trade dress case. It’s about the design characteristics.

      If you take a new Mini Cooper, for example, and some company were to take the complete design of the Mini, but make the car bigger in size, say with 20 percent, it would still be a Mini copy. You cannot say: No, it’s bigger.

      Now if I were to take the design of the Mini and stretch it, it will also still be a copy of the Mini, because you take all the characteristics of the Mini design. People might think this stretched car is a Mini Cooper, or wil recognize it as a knock off.

      • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

        Nope, I’m not saying it is proof just saying it is disingenuous for them to be scrunched to the same size to make them look more alike.

        If someone took a larger car pic and changed the dimensions to make it look exactly like the Mini, that’d be disingenuous too.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI yahoo-X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI

          No, hear what you are saying. The size doesn’t really matter for it to be a copy or clone. So scaling doesn’t matter. Yes, it should be mentioned that it is scaled. But scaling it does not cause it to “make them more alike”. Because they are alike, only different in size.

          I can copy the iMac with exact same front design, but make it even bigger, say with 32″ screen. And then I say: “They are nothing alike, because ours is 32″ and theirs tops at 27″.” Then somebody scales the bigger one down — or upsizes the Apple — and put them in side by side comparison, and the design is shown to be exactly the same. You see, in the end, scale doesn’t really matter.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            I’m not arguing that by any means. The home screen of the iPhone is showed and the app screen of Samsung looks like it.

            I simply take issue with photo manipulation in this case.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI yahoo-X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI

            If stretching or scaling was the means of copying (which is Apple’s stance), then if someone wants to point this out by stretching and rescaling, then it is a valid means to show this.

            It is not really manipulation, but a means of proofing that something is a scaled or stretched copy/clone. Yes, pointing out that you did some image manipulation to proof the point would be good conduct.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Disagree wholeheartedly. Manipulating makes them look even more alike than they are from icon spacing to positioning, etc.

            But that’s ok. We can disagree. :)

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI yahoo-X7H4TCY2UWZHE6S3T3KWXBOMVI

            My point is, it’s easy to clone something by just resizing or stretching something. And if someone points out that it is a clone, then you say: “No, ours is different aspect, and ours is bigger, ours is smaller, etc. But that would really be disingenuous, because the means of coming to your product design was just stretching or scaling someone else’s design.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Those are your words. No one is using that as a reason to explain any similarities.

    • Banana

      Let me add couple more.

      2 – iPad is more likely design for portrait mode whereas SGT101 more likely design for landscape mode. However, the picture show SGT with portrait mode.

      9 – Worst comparison ever, please find another laptop that doesn’t look like that.

      14 – That’s a standard keyboard layout.

      18 – Does same artist have anything to do with patent? I am not sure about that.

  • Banana

    whats the point of scaling the photo anyway?

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      IMHO, it is to further sway the viewer into buying the “Samsung outright copied” argument. I’m not saying they are innocent by any measure but at a minimum let people decide for themselves. Otherwise it is manipulation.

      • rattyuk

        That explains away one of the 20 images. 19 to go mr bland.

        • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

          Actually a few are edited but don’t confuse my objections with the post as trying to refute them. I called out Samsung for a few of those when I got my Tab 10.1, especially the chargers and Tab packaging.

          • Banana

            I agree, and only agree charger is too similar. I am not sure if same “packing” will infringe any patent.

  • http://www.jonathanguenther.com/blog Jonathan Guenther

    Let’s not forget the sunflower Photos app icon! While it is by no means the most problematic infringement, it certainly seems to be the most ridiculous Android (and Samsung, on their Android phones) copy of Apple IP.

  • Grabbit_git

    In any copyright type case, you will always have those that argue that the difference in one example is great enough to negate the entire case.

    However, you have to step back and take in the entire picture.

    While there may be a few specifics that don’t quit line up I have to say, when you step back, the vast majority of the examples presented in this case do seem to be particularly similar.

    It’s up to the court to decide who has infringed upon who, but I suspect, Samsung, who lets be honest, have form in this area and are presenting themselves as either incompetent or willfully negligent , are going to get a multi-billion dollar kick in the nuts.

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      Can’t argue with that.

  • Grabbit_git

    Or, Samsung is employing a tactic to force a mistrial?

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      I’m thinking the same. I’m no lawyer but TV law teaches you to file your lawyer license, make sure critical evidence gets in on time, and don’t continue to upset the judge with antics; well, unless you’re Franklin & Bash. Those are basics.

  • Kr00

    My argument has always been that if Samsung were trying NOT to make their products look so similar to Apples, then they either failed miserably or did so deliberately. Nobody can argue that anything Samsung made that resembles Apple products was just a complete accident. What is wrong here is that a company that boasts about how many millions it spends on R&D, comes out with things that are so similar to everybody else work, its uncanny? Please, give me a break. Samsung have been copying others for 20 years, so why would they stop now. If any of those who hate Apple and believe they shouldn’t have cause to sue here, should ask yourself one question. If you wrote a 10,000 word thesis, and it was the best work you ever did, you would be happy for anyone else to copy your work, without your knowledge or approval? And then do it again, and again. Don’t confuse your hatred over anyones right to protect their work and development. It is the law, and it has been breached, and the perpetrator needs to be held to account, and made to stop. Samsung know only one way to succeed. It’s time to teach them how it should be done.

  • Guest

    your post is quite retarded, its apple that actually copied everything.

    1.iphone- not even a name of their own, it’s a brand originally owned by linksys. design, borrowed from sony, and there were a gazillion devices back then with RECTANGULAR shape!

    2.ipad-1989, GRiDpad, go google, retard

    3.ipod touch-it’s a f**king media player, they’ve always been in market

    4.maps- they are just maps, you want things to look different now?

    5.icons- seriously? icons? you got anything better?

    6.retail store- google ‘stores’, earn some knowledge of how they actually look like

    7.iphone design-rectangle

    8.mini- its a case, what will you compare next? volvo copied bmw?

    9.laptop- how else laptops are supposed to look like? please tell me how!

    10.covers-covers-covers-covers- who will apple sue next? cover makers?

    11.

    12..

    13.. tired, of explaining facts to you. too bad people want to follow originality, but they lack knowledge.

  • Rey N.

    Let’s all drop these -what do we, the users, get upon arguing on these topics -do we get paid for it? Seriously whatever phone you have it’s yours… Don’t ridicule other peoples phones. Windows Phones are good, Apple Phones are good and Linux Phones are good (Linux = Android, for ignorant people who doesn’t know.)

  • Joshua deVille

    LOOK UP F700 Made By Samsung came out before the iphone

    Thats where Apple got the WHole Look of the UI they just made it more colorful and polished.

  • Guest

    These Are All BOGUS!