Samsung’s task in defeating Apple Inc.’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) in the current suit against it is a formidable one, given how many of its own internal document explicitly state that the iPhone should be copied as closely as possible. Today, Youngmi Kim, a UI designer from Samsung, testified brazenly that a document showing a clear directive to copy Apple’s slide-to-unlock feature was not relevant due to its supposed timing. What the effect of Ms. Kim’s claims will be on the jury is, of course, still uncertain.
The document, as revealed by Re/Code, is a translation of a Samsung memo designated “Satisfaction Level – Lock Screen.” It contrasts, complete with graphics, the unsatisfactory design of the Samsung Victory’s flick to unlock feature with the excellence of the Apple iPhone’s slide-to-unlock equivalent. The document notes that the Flick unlocking is vague and oversensitive, and can unlock the screen accidentally with practically any movement of a finger on the display’s surface. It also notes that Apple’s slider solution is “precise” and prevents accidents.
Even more damning, at least superficially, is the text at the bottom of the item. There, a callout box labeled “Direction of Improvement” declares “Same as iPhone, clarify the unlocking standard by sliding.” This suggests to the average mind at least, and without additional context, that Samsung wanted to improve its smartphones by ripping off the iPhone’s slide-to-unlock feature and was giving a directive to its personnel to think in those terms.
According to Ms. Kim, however, the usability study cited is essentially meaningless. She asserted (through a translator) that Samsung had already changed its unlocking feature in 2009, one year before the study came out. This claim is difficult to reconcile with the plain evidence of the document, however. It might be asked, if the unlocking feature was already changed, why pinpoint it as a problematic item and suggest copycatting Apple’s (AAPL) slide-to-unlock feature as a solution?
Another portion of Ms. Kim’s statements could also potentially be viewed in a somewhat cynical light by some jurors. She declared that copying Apple features would leave nothing to differentiate the Korean firm’s products from those designed in Cupertino, California. Nothing, she failed to mention, except price. Galaxy phones are consistently cheaper than Apple iPhones, and one might imagine that “close copies of popular iPhone functions at a sharp discount” would be feature, not a bug, of any promotional strategy pursued by a deliberately infringing firm.
Ms. Kim’s testimony against Apple’s (AAPL) claims about the slide-to-unlock feature appear to have a certain “truthiness” about them, giving the appearance of truth while actually involving huge and tortuous leaps of logic. However, it will be up for a jury much better informed about the case to decide – a heavy burden for any person to take on, with over $2 billion in damages in the balance.
