Who Copied from Whom?
Let us take a look at the basic dimensional specs of three smartphones, especially their basic design and see who copied from whom.
Smartphones (PDAs) with Digital Camera
Smartphone Specifications (Specs)
Sony Ericsson P800 ….. Apple iPhone ……. Samsung Galaxy S
Year
Intro. 2002 2008 2010
Display Large Super large Super large
Form Flat rectangle Flat rectangle Flat rectangle
Bezel Rounded edges Rounded edges Rounded edges
Height 4.6 inches 4.5 inches 4.82 inches
Width 2.3 inches 2.3 inches 2.54 inches
Depth 1.1 inches 0.37 inches 0.39 inches
Weight 5.6 ounces 4.8 ounces 4.26 ounces
As can be seen from the figures above, in terms of GENERAL size and shape design, except for a bit less weight, a narrower bezel (frame), and the thinner depth of the iPhone — as enabled by increasing technological miniaturization of electronic parts over time for the ENTIRE industry, not just for Apple — the iPhone is a virtual copy of the Sony Ericsson P800. The Samsung Galaxy S differs substantially.
Our point here is that the entire legal discussion about litigation over the design of Apple and Samsung products leaves out the very important fact that the design of electronic hand-held devices has a long history, a history providing prior art for a host of features adapted one way or another by subsequent products. Basic features are clearly copied, also by Apple.
We have covered the design debt of the iPhone (introduced in the year 2008) to the 1972 Sinclair Executive and the 1977 Braun ET44 at LCD Touch Screens Led to Thinner Design for Smartphones and Tablets via the Prior Art for Pocket Calculators: The iPhone Copies the Sinclair Executive of 1972 and the Braun ET44 of 1977.
Take a look now at GSMArena.com and Mobile phone evolution: Story of shapes and sizes.
The first touchscreen smartphone to make any substantial impact was the Sony Ericsson P800, which was introduced in the year 2002, six years prior to the iPhone. It was followed by the Sony Ericsson P900 and the Motorola A920, introduced in 2003. These phones already show the typical design features that are found in subsequent more modern touchscreen smartphones: i.e. design rectangles with rounded edges, a much larger display area enabled by miniaturization of technology and larger screen displays, much narrower bezels (frames around the LCD) and a much thinner depth of the entire device.
We have linked the following image of the Sony Ericsson P900 (left) and the Sony Ericsson P800 (right) from CNET UK:
![](https://i0.wp.com/i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2009/07/08/fmimg873423567856363238.jpg)
Image of Sony Ericsson P900 and Sony Ericsson P800
linked from CNET.
The iPhone merely increased the display surface, but it was not the first.
![](https://i0.wp.com/st2.gsmarena.com/vv/pics/motorola/moa920_00.jpg)
The trend not only to a thinner depth but also to a display that covers nearly the entire front surface of a hand-held can be seen in the 2005 Palm TX, a “PDA” (personal digital assistant) with a touch screen, here shown from the front and side.
![](https://i0.wp.com/cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/339280113/palm_tx_2.jpg)
![](https://i0.wp.com/cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/339280113/palm_tx_3.jpg)
Images of Palm TX linked from ZDNet in an article written by by Bonnie Cha, CNET.com on October 14th, 2005, several years before the iPhone.
All of these designs are prior art to the iPhone and encompass numerous features to which Apple can by no stretch of the imagination claim exclusivity for itself. The entire development of design follows the limitations viz. enablements of electronic technology, and not vice-versa.
Hence, in order for a design to possess some special protection, as Apple claims for its iPhone, it would have to contain some unusual element of creativity. The paradox is that the iPhone does not do that at all, but rather is remarkable for its design simplicity. There is really nothing new about it, it is just done nicely. Indeed, the iPhone has the least amount of razzle-dazzle design, not the most, when compared with its predecessors. The rest is public taste and a product of marketing, and for that, the courts are not there to grant injunctions or to follow like sheep the call of the madding crowd.