蘋果(Apple)對三星(Samsung)提出訴訟一案，至今已讓我們看到了兩大問題：在積極立下標竿，以及復(fù)制競爭對手之間的界限何在？以及針對不斷發(fā)展的標準申請專利，和單純?yōu)閷＠麘?zhàn)而申請專利的行為之間區(qū)別又在哪里？
在前幾日的開庭致詞中，蘋果的律師展示長達100多頁的報告。他們將現(xiàn)有的三星手機和iPhone功能進行逐項比較，并在每一頁上加注三星手機使用iPhone 技術(shù)之處。
“證據(jù)顯示，三星確實侵犯了我們的權(quán)利，”蘋果首席律師Harold McElhinny說。
“三星會說我們并沒有復(fù)制，我們立下了電子產(chǎn)業(yè)的新標竿──甚至是對蘋果而言也是標竿的標竿，但所謂的立下標竿，對三星來說卻具有特殊意義，”McElhinny表示。
“三星在美國已經(jīng)銷售超過2,200萬部侵犯蘋果發(fā)明的手機和平板電腦，”他聲稱?！坝捎谑褂昧宋覀兊闹R產(chǎn)權(quán)，三星從蘋果這里奪走了龐大的銷售量，估計可產(chǎn)生的銷售利潤超過20億美元，”他表示。
具體來說，蘋果將提出25億美元的賠償，這將為侵權(quán)案件締造求償新紀錄。該公司聲稱，無論是 iPhone 或 iPad ，三星都侵犯了其用戶界面、產(chǎn)品外觀和感覺方面的設(shè)計專利。
另外，蘋果還指出三星在標準尚未完成前都不公開與該標準相關(guān)專利的舉動，也打破了業(yè)界標準組織的規(guī)則。具體而言，蘋果聲稱三星的兩項3G專利是在ETSI標準被凍結(jié)前就提交了，但該公司完全不透露任何消息，一直到兩年后才揭露。
設(shè)計師登場
隨后，蘋果的工業(yè)設(shè)計師克里斯托夫.斯特林格（Christopher Stringer）出庭做證，讓我們有機會一窺蘋果這個擁有17年歷史的工業(yè)設(shè)計團隊面貌。
蘋果試圖透過設(shè)計師的證詞，提醒人們蘋果在原創(chuàng)設(shè)計方面的貢獻。然而，在交叉詰問中，三星律師的說法卻是蘋果在跟隨著競爭產(chǎn)品。
斯特林格以一襲白色棉布西裝和破舊的牛仔靴出現(xiàn)在法庭上。留著及肩長發(fā)和灰白色胡子，四十出頭的他看來相當(dāng)精瘦，很像操著澳洲口音的耶穌。
左邊的“耶穌”是斯特林格，右邊是我們熟悉的蘋果設(shè)計大師艾夫
T9nesmc
“自1995年加入以來，我參與了每一項蘋果產(chǎn)品的開發(fā)，” 斯特林格說。“我可以說，這是因為我們是團隊作業(yè)，我們非常認真地貢獻出所有的時間，大家都聚在一起討論每一個手上的項目，”他說。
斯特林格參與了多項蘋果公司的專利開發(fā)，其中大部分都出自這個必須向喬納森.艾夫（Jonathan Ive）報告的16人工業(yè)設(shè)計團隊。
“我們的工作圍繞一張廚房的桌子展開，” 斯特林格解釋道。“這是一個多元文化小組，我們的成員來自澳洲、日本、英國、德國、奧地利──我們已經(jīng)一起工 作很長一段時間，很多人都超過15年，所以這是一個彼此非常熟悉的小環(huán)境，和這家公司相比，這個小團隊大概就只像一顆蘋果一樣大吧?！彼硎尽?
然而，這個小組的功能卻非常強大。斯特林格重申，這個小組可以在不考慮制造困難度或成本情況下做出設(shè)計決策。
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
本文下一頁：三星反問：“誰才是創(chuàng)新者？”
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星抄得不夠酷，蘋果反要登報道歉
• Google向?qū)κ炙魅＠M，蘋果堅持不買單
• 歐盟或作和事佬，調(diào)停蘋果三星專利戰(zhàn)T9nesmc
{pagination}
三星反問：“誰才是創(chuàng)新者？”
三星在開庭致詞中提到，許多設(shè)計之初的模型，都像是“遭到擠壓的菱形”。三星聲稱，在看到Sony的手機后，蘋果便將原先外形更方的模型改成較圓邊的版本。
蘋果聲稱三星侵犯的專利之一，就是最初iPhone圓邊長方形專利。在從眾多模型之中做選擇時，蘋果的設(shè)計師體認到，“這是我們所設(shè)計出的最美麗的模型，有時候，我們沒能在第一時間就確認，但最終我們總能實現(xiàn)最好的設(shè)計，” 斯特林格說。
有趣的是，在想到制造iPhone以前，蘋果早已經(jīng)開始構(gòu)思搭載多點觸控屏幕的平板電腦了?！癷Pad是一個“耗時較長的項目”，所以，我們真的嘗試過許多種構(gòu)想，” 斯特林格說。
蘋果展示了早期的iPad設(shè)計模型，包括一些讓人聯(lián)想到帶有銳利方形輪廓和卷曲邊緣的古希臘圓柱裝飾。該公司還曾考慮為iPhone和iPad采用類似的工業(yè)設(shè)計。
最終，“我們決定iPad應(yīng)該擁有自己的風(fēng)格，我們不能自己拷貝自己，” 斯特林格說?！安幌衿渌南M電子產(chǎn)品──iPad并不像又一款電子設(shè)備，它事實上就是是一個全新品種的產(chǎn)品，”他表示。
三星隨后展示了其S1和Galaxy Tab產(chǎn)品的詳細拆解資料。此外，三星也秀出了蘋果首席設(shè)計師艾夫的電子郵件，在iPhone首次問世前，他便建議修改基礎(chǔ)上與Sony手機類似的外觀和感覺設(shè)計。
“從競爭產(chǎn)品獲得靈感，并因而開發(fā)出更好的產(chǎn)品，這不叫拷貝，而且這個業(yè)界人人都這么做，”三星首席律師Charles Verhoeven說。
三星展示了在首款iPhone和iPad上市前就問世的手機和平板，表示它們也都有大致相同的外觀和感覺。
“你可以開發(fā)出一些流行的東西，但這并不代表你就能不準別人也這樣做，” Verhoeven說。“蘋果并沒有發(fā)明長方形的手機外形，你看，它也沒有發(fā)明超大觸控屏幕，”他補充道。
他聲稱，iPad和iPhone中，有高達26%的材料是三星的組件。包括蘋果采用后一炮而紅的 Retina 顯示屏幕在內(nèi)，也是由三星獨家制造?！罢l才是創(chuàng)新者？”他問。
三星的開庭致詞到此結(jié)束。
在交叉詰問時，Verhoeven展示了斯特林格寫給一位蘋果產(chǎn)品開發(fā)團隊成員的電子郵件，信中要求對競爭產(chǎn)品進行分析。
這份電子郵件寫道：“在本周五的腦力激蕩會議中，我需要一份有關(guān)我們敵手(enemies)的工業(yè)設(shè)計最新結(jié)論?！?
Verhoeven問到了所謂的“敵手”──他的意思是包括三星公司在內(nèi)。
“在這種情況下，是的，” 斯特林格說。他接著表示，工業(yè)設(shè)計團隊“很少”要求蘋果的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計團隊去拆解競爭產(chǎn)品。
Verhoeven也展示蘋果分析的八款平板細節(jié)，其中包括三星機型的詳細分析在內(nèi)。 “我們對他們的功能和尺寸感興趣，” 斯特林格說。
“這樣做有什么錯嗎？” Verhoeven問道。
“沒有，” 斯特林格說。
“這些信息會用來設(shè)計新的蘋果產(chǎn)品嗎？”蘋果首席律師McElhinny直接問道。
“絕對不會，” 斯特林格說。
另一方面，Verhoeven則是向斯特林格展示了蘋果專利至關(guān)重要的幾個細節(jié)，并表示三星的產(chǎn)品并未侵犯蘋果所聲稱的專利權(quán)。
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
本文下一頁：蘋果設(shè)計團隊是“瘋狂的一家人”
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星抄得不夠酷，蘋果反要登報道歉
• Google向?qū)κ炙魅＠M，蘋果堅持不買單
• 歐盟或作和事佬，調(diào)停蘋果三星專利戰(zhàn)T9nesmc
{pagination}
蘋果設(shè)計團隊是“瘋狂的一家人”
“我們直接向蘋果的最高層報告，而且能夠接觸到所有蘋果產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計，”斯特林格表示。
雖然“廚房餐桌”這個小組在字面上聽起來很舒適，但這不代表他們的工作環(huán)境也同樣溫馨。
“在這里，大家都直話直說，所有的想法都可以提出來，” 斯特林格說?！拔覀儗⑾敕ㄕf出來，反復(fù)討論，而批評往往嚴厲又殘酷，”他說。
一旦這個小組確認了他們屬意的設(shè)計藍圖，便會將它們送到獨立的CAD專家團隊那兒建立計算機和3D模型，以進一步集思廣益和展開辯論。有時候，這些模型“可能只會是堆放在角落里的一項不起眼產(chǎn)品，”他說。
“我們會在模型上繪制草圖，或是使用不同會議中討論出的草圖，這個過程會不斷激蕩，直到我們認為確實有些特別的想法出現(xiàn)，” 斯特林格說?！拔覀兙拖袷钳偪竦囊患胰?，我們嚴格要求細節(jié)，而且精益求精?！?
“但這個過程并不是線性的，”他補充道?！拔覀儾粫勒諒臉?gòu)想到草圖再到模型生產(chǎn)這個過程，有時候，如果忽然出現(xiàn)更好的主意，我們又會直接跳回到構(gòu)想階段，”他表示。
事實上，蘋果的首席律師Harold McElhinny也展示了iPhone的工業(yè)設(shè)計如何從數(shù)十個待評估的模型成為最終定案的設(shè)計過程。根據(jù)蘋果的CAD文件提交日期，最終的 iPhone 外形早在2006年春季便已定案。
iPhone 4設(shè)計圖
Source：5tu.cnT9nesmc
雷死人的1985年蘋果手機概念設(shè)計圖，居然也申請了專利
Source：myiphoneT9nesmc
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
本文下一頁：“我們被抄襲了”
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星抄得不夠酷，蘋果反要登報道歉
• Google向?qū)κ炙魅＠M，蘋果堅持不買單
• 歐盟或作和事佬，調(diào)停蘋果三星專利戰(zhàn)T9nesmc
{pagination}
“我們被抄襲了”
這個工業(yè)設(shè)計團隊與獨立的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計和制造團隊共同合作。McElhinny詢問了斯特林格在該團隊做出設(shè)計決策后，蘋果會面臨哪些制造挑戰(zhàn)和市場風(fēng)險。
他列舉了與的玻璃和金屬元素之間的匹配問題，如使用薄金屬擋板，并在玻璃上鉆洞。以iPad 2來說，“我們在工廠里花了很大的精力，才讓顯示器的玻璃和金屬幾乎無縫相接，因為過去在前玻璃面板和金屬襯板之間往往會有一些空隙，” 斯特林格表示。
斯特林格的說明反映出了蘋果工業(yè)設(shè)計的高度美學(xué)和直觀可用性等哲學(xué)理念，他并表示，這么做的主要目的，是在創(chuàng)造文化的象征。“我們要創(chuàng)造出能以最簡單、最純粹方法表現(xiàn)出這是什么產(chǎn)品，以及什么樣的人會喜愛它們，”他說。
有時候，這類描述會顯得有些傲慢和夸張。
“當(dāng)時市面上手機種類不算少，但人們并不是非常滿意，” 斯特林格說?！氨M管有了智能手機，但人們還是喜歡用小筆電──我們面對的挑戰(zhàn)也是相當(dāng)巨大的，”他說。
McElhinny詢問斯特林格，請他描述他的團隊在最初的iPhone上市當(dāng)天的情況。
“整個設(shè)計團隊都在舊金山的蘋果專賣店，”他說?！拔覀兌挤浅＜?，我們有新東西上市了，受到萬眾矚目，幾乎每個人都在談?wù)撍?。?
“人潮洶涌，我們想看到第一個拿到iPhone的人──當(dāng)時的場景就像嘉年華會，混亂但熱情，”他回憶道。“我們非常、非常自豪，我們非常、非常地努力，我們曾經(jīng)投入的巨大犧牲，換來的成果是值得的，這是美好的一天，”他說。
接下來，McElhinny詢問斯特林格，請他形容看到三星這個看起來像iPhone產(chǎn)品的感受。
“我們被抄襲了，很明顯，特別是這是由三星發(fā)起的進攻，”他說。
“這是想象力的大躍進，一種全新的產(chǎn)品應(yīng)運而生，”他說?！斑@是一個過程，你必須試著去忘記你所知道的一切──非常困難；但你去看看競爭對手，去看看那些你決定不再跟隨他們的競爭對手──他們的產(chǎn)品線中，幾乎沒有什么是我們想要做的。”他說。
蘋果的銷售部負責(zé)人Phil Schiller，以及移動操作系統(tǒng)負責(zé)人Scott Forstall都有機會出庭作證。當(dāng)法院再度開庭時，Schiller將告訴我們他的iPhone設(shè)計故事。
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
參考英文原文：A look inside Apple’s kitchen table group; Apple v. Samsung kicks off innovation debates ，by Rick Merritt
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星抄得不夠酷，蘋果反要登報道歉
• Google向?qū)κ炙魅＠M，蘋果堅持不買單
• 歐盟或作和事佬，調(diào)停蘋果三星專利戰(zhàn)T9nesmc
{pagination}
Apple v. Samsung kicks off innovation debates
Rick Merritt
SAN JOSE – The Apple v. Samsung case now starting here has already raised two broad questions: What’s the line between aggressive benchmarking and copying of a competitor’s product? And what’s the line between filing patents that are relevant to evolving standards and ones that are intentional submarines?
In opening statements this morning, Apple attorneys showed detailed Samsung reports extending over more than 100 pages. They compared existing Samsung handsets to the iPhone on a feature-by-feature basis making recommendations on each page suggesting Samsung adopt iPhone techniques.
“The evidence will show Samsung has taken our property,” said Harold McElhinny, Apple’s lead attorney.
“Samsung will say we didn’t copy, we benchmarked and everybody in electronics benchmarks--even Apple benchmarks, but benchmarking had a very special meaning at Samsung,” McElhinny said.
“Samsung sold more than 22 million infringing phones and tablets in the U.S. using Apple’s inventions,” he claimed. “Samsung has taken sales away from Apple and will generate more than $2 billion in profit for Samsung that they made using our intellectual property,” he added.
Specifically Apple will seek $2.5 billion in damages, said to be a new watermark in infringement cases. It claims Samsung infringed utility and design patents on the user interface and product look and feel of both the iPhone and the iPad.
Separately, Apple also contends Samsung broke rules in industry standards groups by not declaring patents covering standards work until after the standard was completed. Specifically it claims two Samsung 3G patents were filed before ETSI standards were frozen, then not disclosed until two years later.
For its part, Samsung showed Apple’s detailed internal teardowns of Samsung S1 and Galaxy Tab products. In addition, it showed an email to Apple’s lead designer, Jonathan Ive, suggesting changes to the look of the iPhone before it was released based on the look and feel of a Sony handset.
“Being inspired by competing products and trying to develop better ones is not copying its competition and everybody does it,” said Charles Verhoeven, Samsung's lead attorney.
Samsung showed examples of handsets and tablets released before the first iPhones and iPads but having a roughly similar look and feel.
“If you make something popular it doesn’t mean you can exclude other people from doing it,” Verhoeven said. “Apple didn’t invent the rectangular form factor you see, it didn’t invent the large touch screen,” he added.
He claimed as much as 26 percent of some iPad and iPhone bill of materials are for Samsung components. That includes the Retina display Apple heavily markets and is made exclusively by Samsung. “Who’s the innovator,” he asked.
Samsung’s opening statements conclude this afternoon.
Apple’s head of marketing, Phil Schiller, and its head of mobile operating systems, Scott Forstall, are both expected to testify.
A look inside Apple’s kitchen table group
Rick Merritt
SAN JOSE – A 17-year veteran of Apple’s small but powerful industrial design team provided a glimpse of the design process at Apple in the first testimony of the company’s patent infringement case against Samsung.
Apple attempted to use the testimony to evoke the ethos of Apple’s painstaking dedication to original design. However, under cross-examination Samsung’s attorney made clear Apple closely follows competing products.
Christopher Stringer appeared in court in a white cotton suit and well-worn cowboy boots. His shoulder length hair and full beard were streaked with grey. Lean and tanned, he resembled a 40-something Jesus with an Australian accent.
“I’ve worked on every Apple product since I joined in 1995,” Stringer said. “I can say that because we work as a team and take that very seriously, dedicating time every week so we all get together and talk about every project we are working on,” he said.
Stringer is named in many of Apple’s patents, as are most of the roughly 16 people in Apple’s industrial design team run by Jonathan Ive to whom Stringer reports.
“We work together around a kitchen table,” Stringer explained. “It’s a culturally diverse group with members from Australia, Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria--and we’ve been together a very long time, many of us for 15 years, so it’s a very familiar small environment which is remarkable for a company the size of Apple,” he said.
Nevertheless the group is a powerful one. Stringer repeatedly said the group can make design decisions without concern for the manufacturing difficulties or costs they may entail.
“We link directly to the highest levels of Apple and are involved in all the products Apple ships,” he said.
While the “kitchen table” meeting area of the group sounds cozy, it is not always a comfortable place to be.
“It’s a brutally honest debate [there], that’s where all the ideas happen,” Stronger said. “We sketch and trade ideas and go back and forth--that’s where the brutal criticism comes in,” he said.
Once the group settles on sketches it likes, it takes them to a separate team of CAD specialists that creates computer and 3-D models of them as subjects for further brainstorming and debate. Sometimes the models “might be just a little corner of a product,” he said.
“We will even sketch on models or use a sketch from a different design session, [the process] weaves and knits [ideas] until we think we have something really special,” Stringer said. “We’re a pretty maniacal group of people, we obsess on details, every single detail is very carefully crafted,” he said.
“The process is not linear,” he added. “It doesn’t go from thought to sketch to model to production—we can jump straight back to idea stage if a better idea is created,” he added.
Indeed, Apple’s lead attorney, Harold McElhinny, showed how what became the industrial design for the original iPhone was one of dozens of models designers had created, rejected and then later returned to re-evaluate. The final form factor was set as early as the spring of 2006, according to the dates on Apple’s CAD files.
Among the many models created was a “extruded lozenge” form factor Samsung alluded to in its opening statement. Samsung alleged Apple changed from that square-edged model to a more round-edge version after an Apple designer saw a Sony phone he admired.
Apple claims one of the patents Samsung infringed was a patent on the rectangular shape with rounded edges of the original iPhone. In selecting that design from the many other models Apple designers realized “it was the most beautiful of our designs--we sometimes don’t recognize it [at first] but we finally realized it,” Stringer said.
Interestingly, Apple was working on tablet concepts with multi-touch screens before it came up with the idea of the iPhone, Stringer said. The iPad “was a long project, we tried so many things,” he said.
Apple showed early models of iPad designs including some reminiscent of Grecian columns with sharp square outlines and curled edges. The company also considered similar industrial designs for the iPhone and iPad.
In the end, “we decided the [iPad] deserved its own identity, we couldn’t copy ourselves,” said Stringer. “It wasn’t like a consumer electronics product at all--it didn’t feel like a device, it felt like a new object,” he said.
“We’ve been ripped off”
The industrial design team works with separate product design and manufacturing teams. McElhinny asked Stringer to detail the manufacturing challenges and market risks Apple faced with the designs his team chose.
He listed problems with mating glass and metal elements, using thin metal bezels and drilling holes in the glass. For the iPad 2, “there was a huge effort in the factory getting the gaps or reveals to be as tight as they are” between the glass front and metal backing, said Stringer.
Stringer reflected much of the philosophy of high aesthetics and intuitive usability associated with Apple’s industrial designs, saying it aimed to create cultural icons. “We want to create the simplest, purest manifestation of what [the product] could be—something people could love,” he said.
The descriptions sometimes bordered on self-serving hubris and hyperbole.
“There were legions of phones available and none of them were very satisfying,” Stringer said. “Smartphones existed but they were more like tiny computers--we came up with something breathtaking and the challenges of producing that were enormous,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe what his team did the day the original iPhone was launched.
“The entire design team--or those who could be--were at the Apple store in San Francisco,” he said. “We were excited, we had something new and there was an incredible buzz of people anticipating something,” he said.
“There was an enormous crowd outside, we wanted to feel that enthusiasm and see the first people to get [the iPhone]--it was mayhem, like a carnival,” he recalled. “We were very, very proud; we had worked very, very hard--an enormous amount of people had put out great sacrifices--and it was worth it, it was a beautiful day,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe his feelings about products that look like the iPhone.
“We’ve been ripped off, it’s plain to see—by Samsung in particular--it’s offensive,” he said.
“It’s a big leap of imagination to come up with something entirely new,” he said. “It’s a process by which you have to try to forget everything you know--clearly very difficult, but if you pay attention to the competition you wind up following them--not what we wanted to do,” he said
Under cross-examination, however, Samsung lead attorney Charles Verhoeven showed an email from Stringer to a member of Apple’s product development team requesting an analysis of competing products.
“I need your latest summary of our enemies for an [industrial design] brainstorm on Friday,” the email said.
Verhoeven asked if by “enemies” he meant to include companies such as Samsung.
“In this instance, yes,” said Stringer. The industrial design team “very rarely” makes such requests of the Apple product design team that conducts teardowns of competing products, he added.
Verhoeven also showed a detailed Apple analysis of eight competing tablets including models from Samsung. “We were interested in their feature sets and dimensions,” said Stringer.
“Is there anything wrong with doing that?” asked Verhoeven.
“No,” said Stringer.
“Was that information used to design a new Apple product?” asked McElhinny on re-direct.
“Absolutely not,” said Stringer.
Separately, Verhoeven was able to show Stringer considered crucial several details of Apple’s patents that are not copied in the Samsung products Apple alleges infringe its patents.
Next, Phil Schiller, Apple’s head of marketing, took the stand briefly before the end of the session. When court reconvenes Schiller will give his version of the story behind the design of the iPhone.
責(zé)編：Quentin
