So, a friend of mine years ago after the iPhone came out purchased a Samsung pre-Android "smartphone". He bought it because it "looked like an iPhone" and did smartphone things like the internet and mp3's (sort of).
He quickly realized that it was NOT an iPhone or even a very smart smartphone.
Since you don't always get to use the phones in stores, you don't always know what you're buying. If it "looks like an iPhone" and has the same feature list, to many people it's the same basic device, just like most people do with appliances, cars, tv's, computers, etc.
Samsung made a lot of sales based on the fact that they looked and sold themselves as an iPhone look/workalike device.
If this was an argument for damages every car company would spend all its time litigating. What exactly is the difference between a Corolla and a Fusion? Why does every car have about the same shape? Is it because anything other than that isn't aerodynamic and will destroy highway mileage, or is everyone infringing on IP?
Well one difference is that patents only have a lifespan of what 20 years or so? Most of the basic tech in a car that was patented in the 1900's is free to be used and improved upon. Is new stuff patented and licensed? Yes, absolutely it is.
Notice how Toyota partnered with Tesla motors to build an EV SUV? Or what about how Ford licensed Toyota's hybrid technology back in 2004? Patents and licensing.
Given that the automotive industry is much older than the computer industry, they've likely learned the value in licensing technology where it makes sense. Nobody would claim or confuse a Ford Fusion Hybrid with a Toyota Prius.
Also, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, etc. all by now have fairly distinct branding and styles, so you don't see as much where the new Ford sedan looks just like the new Chevy sedan in hopes of selling more vehicles.
Samsung seems to have made a real effort to look and sell as if they're selling iPhones and iPads. That is why they're in trouble. Notice that Apple didn't sue Blackberry for the the Storm or the Torch looking the same as the iPhone.
Apple also sued HTC and Motorola. They are attacking every successful Android manufacturer. It has nothing to do with what Samsung did specifically. Apple first decided to sue Samsung and then the lawyers came up with the arguments.
AFAIK, they aren't suing HTC and Motorola for infringing on their trade dress and design patents though, only Samsung is getting that attack. And, it's not like Apple's the only one participating in the patent lawsuit game, it's a big web of lawsuits where they're all suing each other for something or other. We single out Apple in this mess because they're the most headline worthy.
Steve Jobs warned Samsung about not infringing on many of the key patents e.g. rubber banding effect and even offered to license it. Samsung refused. Hence the subsequent lawsuits.
And it highlights how fast people adopt tech now. Major feature changes in automobiles happen over decades, and people can rely on the look signaling major features.
Now the uptake is so rapid that consumers have a lot of opportunity to make dumber decisions. A smartphone may well impact your life more than your choice of sedan, but because a smartphone is cheap compared to a sedan you just aren't going to research the choice as thoroughly.
Really, the consumers are the problem. They need to realize that despite the low cost of computers and smartphones, their choice of computer and smartphone is sometimes a decision on the level of "apartment shopping," not "Xbox or Playstation?," when it comes to impact it will have on their day-to-day life.
This comment is irrelevant. Apple is suing over Samsung's newer devices not some old pre-android phone. If they had a problem with that older phone they could have sued over that one.
He uses an LG Optimus V on Virgin Mobile because it's cheap, contract free, and is a solid little smartphone. If he was willing to drop $650 on a phone, he'd probably buy the iPhone on Virgin Mobile.
In a platform race, in a business where multi-year contracts are typical, and platform lock-in is strong, there is an argument to be made that the first device someone purchases is most important.
What do you mean? Most important in what way? The Samsung Instinct was a failure for Samsung. They did not sell way, the grandparents' friend was one of the few that got one (and like most people, he didn't like it). If that's not the market working, I don't know what is.
Yeah, my father-in-law who was a die hard Sprint customer had it. It was definitely being pushed hard as Sprint's iPhone equivalent, even if Samsung wasn't marketing it directly as such.
Before that, Sprint was laughably selling the HTC Touch with WinMo6.5 and some crappy skin as their iPhone equivalent.
Maybe it's just hindsight bias, but as I recall, hardware manufacturers didn't seem to do nearly as much direct brand marketing before the iPhone as they do now.
Speaking of hindsight bias, IMHO,the HTC Touch & WinMo 5/6.5 made for a better "smartphone" than its contemporary iPhone. Despite it's attempt at touch/tap (had a stylus), it was pretty fantastic. WinMo had applications, easy syncing, file system access, an active developer/hacker community, Exchange support, etc. The exchange support alone made it far more valuable to me than the iPhone. Where it lacked was polish of its multimedia features the market expects today as well as a modern-ish browser. Tethering one on of those things w/ the EV-DO rev A network was a pretty great tinkerers capability -- well over a year before iPhone had 3G. FWIW, the Touch was a well-executed device and the xda community took the Vogue pretty far.
I actually had the HTC Touch (I had a $30/mo unlimited SERO plan, couldn't complain).
It was a rock solid device (I even had Android flashed on it and in many ways it outperformed my "legit Android" Samsung Moment). WinMo6.5 was also a fine competitor in the PalmOS era, but everyone except AT&T tried really hard to sell skinned WinMo6.5 devices as touch friendly interfaces even sans-stylus in response to the iPhone. That fell flat on it's face once you tried to use any non-superficial feature on WinMo6. Dial a number? Sure, use your fingers. Need to enter a new contact? Bust out that stylus.
He quickly realized that it was NOT an iPhone or even a very smart smartphone.
Since you don't always get to use the phones in stores, you don't always know what you're buying. If it "looks like an iPhone" and has the same feature list, to many people it's the same basic device, just like most people do with appliances, cars, tv's, computers, etc.
Samsung made a lot of sales based on the fact that they looked and sold themselves as an iPhone look/workalike device.