Ask HN: Why has'nt Samsung used the argument that Apple copied Braun?

Braun didn't make computers, or phones, or tablets.

If you made a computer mouse inspired by the shape of a Porsche 911 you probably wouldn't have any problems, but if you made a car modelled after a Porsche 911 you certainly would.

Apple hasn't argued that rectangular phones are it's exclusive domain, however it's case is characterised by some people. It's saying that the many, many similarities are so numerous and so dominate the design of some Samsung products that it believes some consumers would have to actually expend deliberate effort to tell those products apart from Apple products, and that this is going too far.

They're basically arguing that if there is a line that it's possible to cross when making your product look too similar to someone else's, then Samsung has crossed that line. You could disagree. You could think that there is a line and Samsung didn't cross it, or that there is no line and it's OK to completely duplicate another company's products so that yours are actually identical. Are you in either of those two camps? If so, which.

This also relates to the 'Poor artists copy, great artists steal' idea. The point isn't that great artists are better at making their stuff look like someone else's, or something. That's a popular misinterpretation. The point is that great artists take the idea and make it their own. They produce an expression of that idea that is so 'theirs' that they now own it artistically.

Because Apple has been inspired by them, not out-right copied them.

Apple take ideas from Braun and put them into different contexts (products). Samsung have taken Apple’s ideas and put them into the exact same context (or so the argument goes).

Another reason: The Braun designs that Apple have been inspired by are decades old by this point. Most of the Braun products don’t have these designs anymore (Aside: IMHO I think they current design is inferior to a lot of their older stuff.)

EDIT: Removed something that I don’t think was accurate.

The court did not allow Samsung to use any prior evidence showing that Apple copied others. This was a major point of contention that led to Samsung releasing various photos to the media about two weeks ago in an attempt to poison the media and the public (and possibly the jury pool).

Many have claimed that this is because Judge Koh is heavily biased against Samsung, or for Apple. But really, it was Samsung's fault for fucking with the discovery process. At the federal level, the discovery process is the most important part of the case. It is sacrosanct. By ignoring their obligations in discovery, Samsung effectively killed their case because the Judge then disallowed the use of any evidence that Samsung did not make available during discovery, including, for example, pretty much all of the evidence that Apple copied others.

Lesson learned: if you have a bullet-proof case, make damn sure to honor your discovery obligations in federal courts or your bullet-proof case becomes an untempered-glass case.