or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple accused of faking evidence in EU iPad case against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accused of faking evidence in EU iPad case against Samsung

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
A Dutch magazine run by IDC has accused Apple of faking evidence of Samsung's "slavish" copying in its German complaint that the Galaxy Tab 10.2 is "practically identical" in design to the iPad

The Webwereld site, syndicated by IDC's English Computerworld, claims that "Apple and its lawyers have, perhaps inadvertently, misled the judge of a Düsseldorf court by filing flawed evidence of the similarity between the iPad 2 and Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets based on an inaccurate picture."

Ratio wrong

The picture in question depicts the Galaxy Tab 10.1 next to an iPad 2, with a distorted screen ratio that makes both tablets appear to have the a closer aspect ratio than they actually do.

In reality, Samsung's Galaxy Tab has a widescreen orientation ratio of 1.46 (like most other Android tablets), while the iPad is closer to being square at 1.3. In the graphic, the Tab is presented as appearing to be 1.36, making it look more like the iPad than it actually does.

Because of its wider ratio, the Tab is often presented in its landscape orientation, while Apple depicts the iPad in its tall, portrait orientation most of the time. Shown in different orientations, the two devices look even more different, as Webwereld depicts in its critique of Apple's complaint.



Apple's complaint doesn't mention screen ratios

The Dutch site performing its investigation into the matter couldn't say whether Apple had deliberately changed the photograph to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad than it actually does.

Blogger Florian Mueller was cited by Computerworld as saying that "picture in the German complaint could be of a pre-release prototype," but the graphic could also have been provided by Samsung in its marketing materials as an attempt of its own to make the Galaxy Tab look like a suitable replacement for the iPad. Neither Apple nor Samsung would comment to the media on the graphic's origins.

Interestingly however, Apple's complaint (originally written in German and embedded below article; citations translated into English here) makes no mention of screen ratios. Instead, it describes a strategic effort by Samsung to "slavishly imitate" Apple's striking product designs in a way that violates Apple's "valuable commercial rights."

Establishing a history of predatory copying

The copying began, Apple's complaint states, in 2010 with Samsung's Galaxy product line. Apple says it met with Samsung last August to inform it of its concerns over copycat smartphone and tablet designs, but that the company continued to roll the products out into a variety of jurisdictions, including the USA, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands.

Apple's complain reveals that a court prohibited Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab in Australia before first producing copies of the device to Apple for examination, because Samsung "would give no information about how the proposed product for Australia would differ from the US version, which is identical in all material respects to the version recently introduced to the market in Korea."

Samsung previous stated publicly that "no injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia." In reality, Apple demonstrated the currently shipping American version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to the court, which Samsung construed as being "a variant" that it "had no plans of selling in Australia," because the Australian version hadn't shipped yet.

Apple describes how the iPad design is being copied

Apple's complaint says the company spent $691 million in global advertising expense last year to help establish the iPad as a well known brand and product. It then recounts the ways that Samsung designed its Galaxy Tab 10.1 to "look just like the iPad, instead of developing its own style."

The complaint states that "the design of the iPad, in its original and in its current [iPad 2] version, differed from the design of previous mobile computing devices. No other computer product which preceded the iPad, looked like the iPad."

Apple added that the iPad "expands on design elements which originate from other products of the applicant - In particular the iPhone - to transfer elements of this unique and innovative Apple design to a new class of tablet computer products."

In contrast, "before the introduction of the iPad," the complaint states that "the market for tablet computers was relatively small, and the products on the market were expensive, heavy and rather unwieldy," as it depicted in various photos to the court.

"The shape of the iPad heralded a new era of tablet computers," the complaint continued. "The design is so distinctive, that if someone in the public has or uses an iPad, it is immediately recognized as such," and as an Apple product. The complaint directs attention to pictures of tablet devices introduced before the iPad, which look "entirely different from the iPad."

Among the design elements Apple describes as unique to the iPad are:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.

iPad 2 carries the same design elements ahead, with a slimmer profile, Apple notes, preserving the immediate recognition of the device as distinct from previous tablet products or conventional computing devices currently on the market.

Samsung apparently refuses to present its product to Apple for review

"Against this background," Apple states it "still has no copies of this [Galaxy Tab 10.1 for Europe] Product and therefore relies on both the representation of the product in the CHIP-report and the other above-mentioned publications, as well as on the design of the products of Galaxy Tab 10.1, as it was purchased outside of Europe."

Because Samsung has presented its tablet to the media for review and started advertising it in Europe while apparently refusing to discuss any concerns with its partner and competitor, Apple said it decided to seek an injunction in Europe.

"Since no product samples are available," Apple's complaint states, "pictures of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 are reproduced as it was tested by TecChannel." This indicates that the graphics Apple used in the complaint are derived from other sources, making it even less clear who changed the depicted ratio of the Galaxy Tab in one of the two dozen pictures included in the complaint.

Apple produced a series of photos of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, describing it as "an obvious copy of the equipment of the second iPad" with the previous stated design elements "almost identical" and "making the same impression" as Apple's registered European Community design 000181607-0001.

The photo in question extracted from the complaint by Webwereld (depicted above) is then presented as evidence that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 copies the iPad in every respect that Apple described above, ranging from its shape to its look to its materials, screen positioning and so on. Again, there is no mention of the Galaxy Tab having a similar screen ratio.



Copied down to the box design

Apple complains that "the overall impression of the front is almost identical. There are no differences in the Tab 10.1 to leave it recognizable as a product from the iPad 2." The complaint adds, "however, the similarity is not restricted to the front, but also extends onto the back, the top and bottom."

The complaint also details that "the dimensions of the two products are very similar. (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab 10.1 (width / height / depth): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm)," making no effort to suggest that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is any closer in dimensions to iPad 2 than it actually is.

Apple also states that "copying also extends to the product packaging - not only in terms of color and the overall external appearance but also in terms of presentation of the inner packaging. The overall impression of the products is therefore almost identical." Apple notes that Samsung's Galaxy Tab box not only copies the same photography, colors and reflective text, but even lays the device into a identical tray as the iPad and the iPhone packaging before it.





Apple's not the only company calling Samsung a copycat

Apple then cited examples of reviewers and media sources making comments such as "Samsung has given up trying to design innovative tablet design," "Samsung has always copied everyone, not just Apple" and "Samsung's B + mentality: Find a successful product, copy it."

The company even cited Lee Don-joo, the executive vice president of Samsung's mobile division, who earlier this year acknowledged that the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 design was "inadequate" after seeing the release of the iPad 2, and noted that the company would "will have to improve the parts that are inadequate" on the model it had just shown before actually bringing it to market, noting that "Apple made it [iPad 2] very thin."

"It should be noted in passing that copying the iPhone design by the defendant is just as obvious," Apple notes, adding that "against this background there can be no doubt that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is distributed with full Intention of being a copy of iPad 2, to unfairly take advantage of the good reputation of this product and therefore [Apple] the applicant."

The iPad's reputation as being a high quality, luxurious, attractive product is particularly at issue in the case, as attempts to take advantage of an existing company's reputation by selling a knockoff product that creates confusion with a well known brand has been addressed earlier by the German Supreme Court in cases involving Rolex watches and Les Paul guitars.

Apple's complaint therefore has little to do with the aspect ratio of the screen and everything to do with the shape, presentation, design, packaging and overall identity of the iPad that it is accusing Samsung of "slavishly" copying.

10-08-04 Apple Motion for EU-Wide Prel Inj Galaxy Tab 10.1(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
post #2 of 81
Well done. Every other site on the Internet blew this story completely. You at least managed to take the time to put a little research into the story.
post #3 of 81
Android users are 80% more likely to ONLY have a High School diploma.

insult removed

JK

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/and...nes-optimists/

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #4 of 81
Hmmm...

Though in this particular case, things are far more interesting (to say the least) than usual, and Apple's legal team might have quite a bit to answer for (besides really bad PhotoShop editing).

If Apple's 'copying' claims have merit, then so be it, but they shouldn't be allowed to go around altering images/tampering with evidence in hopes of cheating the system.

Hopefully the courts will conclude that the chances of someone walking into an electronics store and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy Tab somehow thinking it was an iPad are nearly infinitesimal given that the devices have completely different sizes, aspect ratios, color-schemes, material compositions, as well as clearly labeled as either Apple or Samsung on the device surface, start-up screen, and packaging.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmmm...

Though in this particular case, things are far more interesting (to say the least) than usual, and Apple's legal team might have quite a bit to answer for (besides really bad PhotoShop editing).

If Apple's 'copying' claims have merit, then so be it, but they shouldn't be allowed to go around altering images/tampering with evidence in hopes of cheating the system.

Hopefully the courts will conclude that the chances of someone walking into an electronics store and purchasing a Samsung Galaxy Tab somehow thinking it was an iPad are nearly infinitesimal given that the devices have completely different sizes, aspect ratios, color-schemes, material compositions, as well as clearly labeled as either Apple or Samsung on the device surface, start-up screen, as well as packaging.

There is really no evidence suggesting photoshop was used at all. If you look through the complaint, it appears the photos were just popped into a word table and sized accordingly. Why would they photoshop something that is clearly contradicted by 6 other photos and the text in the document?
post #6 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post

Android users are 80% more likely to ONLY have a High School diploma.

insult removed

JK

I see little reason to insult the majority of smartphone buyers in this manner. It is rude, self-congratulatory and demeaning. Not to mention downright rude. Many Apple customers prefer Android phones.
post #7 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

There is really no evidence suggesting photoshop was used at all. If you look through the complaint, it appears the photos were just popped into a word table and sized accordingly. Why would they photoshop something that is clearly contradicted by 6 other photos and the text in the document?

Except it's not clearly contradicted IMHO. That image is the only one in color, the only one vertical, and the only one with screen display (altho the Samsung one shows the AppDrawer screen, a secondary display that requires user request, while Apple's is the boot screen.

All the other images show the devices at various angles, and generally with more separation, which are much harder to directly compare. And those b&w images weren't selected by pure chance.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 81
Thank you for the proper perspective on this story.

MacRumors, for example, blew it completely. And now, more than ever, their troll problem is apparent. And they're doing nothing about it.

Glad to see AI still has some sense.

- *LTD*
post #9 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I see little reason to insult the majority of smartphone buyers in this manner. It is rude, self-congratulatory and demeaning. Not to mention downright rude. Many Apple customers prefer Android phones.

The irrelevant story he posted is not really self-congratulatory. I do not believe Hunch makes smartphones. I also doubt it is particularly accurate or in any way meaningful.

Strange though. I do no think it is rude, self-congrulatory, or demeaning. I struggle to see how any of those terms would apply to it. (If we presumed it was accurate, which I do not).
post #10 of 81
Huh, I didn't realise that the Galaxy Tab is even thinner than the iPad 2 (marginally). That's a pretty good effort by Samsung...

It's a bit sad realising that if we wish to continue to discuss tech on these boards we're all going to have to become patent attorneys!
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #11 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Thank you for the proper perspective on this story.

MacRumors, for example, blew it completely. And now, more than ever, their troll problem is apparent. And they're doing nothing about it.

Glad to see AI still has some sense.

THey did add a brief update suggesting that those two photographs might not be all of the evidence presented in the 40 page complaint.
post #12 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

THey did add a brief update suggesting that those two photographs might not be all of the evidence presented in the 40 page complaint.

It's hardly sufficient. But MR is MR. What are you going to do.
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post

Huh, I didn't realise that the Galaxy Tab is even thinner than the iPad 2 (marginally). That's a pretty good effort by Samsung...

It's a bit sad realising that if we wish to continue to discuss tech on these boards we're all going to have to become patent attorneys!

The original Tab was thicker, but when they iPad 2 was released, they pulled that model and regrouped with the thinner one. It has been hard to keep up
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

The irrelevant story he posted is not really self-congratulatory. I do not believe Hunch makes smartphones. I also doubt it is particularly accurate or in any way meaningful.

Strange though. I do no think it is rude, self-congrulatory, or demeaning. I struggle to see how any of those terms would apply to it. (If we presumed it was accurate, which I do not).

I was referring to his comment: "This pretty much confirms what everyone knows. Android users are Dumb F%&CKS."

Sorry if I was unclear.
post #15 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I was referring to his comment: "This pretty much confirms what everyone knows. Android users are Dumb F%&CKS."

There are exceptions if you look hard enough.
post #16 of 81
Just my two cents:
The Apple Legal Team used actual Galaxy Tabs and iPads in court to argue their case. They didn't just throw up promotional picture examples and use only that to argue the case...
post #17 of 81
Which mobile OS would werewolves use? Hunch never answers the important questions.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

Just my two cents:
The Apple Legal Team used actual Galaxy Tabs and iPads in court to argue their case. They didn't just throw up promotional picture examples and use only that to argue the case...

Are you sure? I thought I'd read that one of Apple's complaints was that Samsung hadn't yet submitted a Tab for their examination.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmmm...

Though in this particular case, things are far more interesting (to say the least) than usual, and Apple's legal team might have quite a bit to answer for (besides really bad PhotoShop editing).

If Apple's 'copying' claims have merit, then so be it, but they shouldn't be allowed to go around altering images/tampering with evidence in hopes of cheating the system.

so tell me, how did you verify that in fact this document is the same one that was filed with the courts and not some doctored evidence by the website against Apple. .

You likely didn't so who knows if this copy of the document in legit or not.

How about we wait and see what happens in court before we pass judgment on Apple or Samsung

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #20 of 81
Seems like shoddy work from the lawyers. Not some underhandedness byApple or their lawyers considering it's a single image and the complaint isn't about aspect ratio.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

There is really no evidence suggesting photoshop was used at all. If you look through the complaint, it appears the photos were just popped into a word table and sized accordingly. Why would they photoshop something that is clearly contradicted by 6 other photos and the text in the document?

Because it backs up his point regardless how foolish it sounds. Remember he's the guy that said Apple is tampering with evidence.

Between DaHarder, the poster that has to use large fonts to get attention, post huge images, and the other poster that has quote the huge image as if we would have forgotten the image already... this thread has gone to shit. All it's missing is MacRulez saying how AppleInsider would never post an article about Apple that puts them in a poor light.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Are you sure? I thought I'd read that one of Apple's complaints was that Samsung hadn't yet submitted a Tab for their examination.

I think you're talking about two different Galaxy Tabs. One was on the market and the other wasn't.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 81
The other misleading thing about that photo: They created a galaxy tab screen so that it only has icons, and they're arranged without any gaps so it much more closely resembles the iPad's layout.

While it's true that you can deliberately arrange things that way, unlike the iPad the Galaxy Tab allows gaps in your icon placement, and also has widgets that span multiple rows and/or columns, and I know of NO users of a Galaxy Tab who would use a screen layout like that.

People tend to place their icons in clusters, and use widgets all over the place. So yes you *could* in theory arrange your Galaxy Tab's screen to closely resemble an iPad's, but that's not how it looks out-of-the-box (the default layout has plenty of widgets) and Samsung never shows that sort of iPad-like arrangement in any documentation. So, another bit of shadiness in what they're doing in that photo.
post #23 of 81
"- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display."
What's wrong with that? Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like having colored icons is something special... am I missing something here?
post #24 of 81
The document does seem to have plenty of photos showing the correct aspect ratio. The document also specs out the exact dimensions of the products as well. The 'doctored' photo seems to be more of an illustration emphasizing the similarities of key design features. For example, they obviously photoshopped out the Samsung logo and have the Tab displaying the App Drawer.

btw- I read the (translated) source article and it seems like the author was trolling pretty hard.
post #25 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Seems like shoddy work from the lawyers. Not some underhandedness byApple or their lawyers considering it's a single image and the complaint isn't about aspect ratio.

That aspect ratio would form part of the body of argument about similarity. The focus on in the article itself is merely a reaction to the source article which made the assertion in the first place and seizes on something that, while not specifically argued (if that was the case), is relevant to the overall impression of the design.

If the Galaxy Tab was a foot high and three inches wide, it's highly unlikely to have been subject to challenge. Whatever the article asserts about the aspect ratio it is not unimportant as it seems to suggest.
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Except it's not clearly contradicted IMHO. That image is the only one in color, the only one vertical, and the only one with screen display (altho the Samsung one shows the AppDrawer screen, a secondary display that requires user request, while Apple's is the boot screen.

All the other images show the devices at various angles, and generally with more separation, which are much harder to directly compare. And those b&w images weren't selected by pure chance.

I believe they are all color photographs. I think this image seems more important because it is taken way out of context. It is on page 28 of the complaint and immediately follows four other pictures that very clearly depict the difference in screen ratios. The actual dimensions of each device are listed almost immediately below it. It is the only one with a screen display, which I suppose makes it more colorful. Since software does not appear to be a significant part of this complaint, that makes sense. Since aspect ratio is no part of the complaint, this mountainous molehill is truly ridiculous.

It is hard to imagine a person without an alternative agenda reviewing the entire report and believing this photograph was material to the judges decision. It is absurd, to say the least.
post #27 of 81
I think Apple's going to have a hard time, in spite of the fact that Samsung did copy the iPad

Quote:
Among the design elements Apple describes as unique to the iPad are:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.

All computer and phone screens are rectangular and are rounded corners that unique?
All monitors and almost all phones have a flat clear surface that covers the front.
The metal frame around may be somewhat unique or it may be the most generic way to seal the top to bottom.
Centered display: so? You can't get a patent or copyright on a centered display.
Colored icons when switched on: What products don't have colored icons?

So I think Apple will have a tough time with this. Don't almost all HDTVs look exactly the same? The manufacturers can protect unique technology that they offer, but overall physical look and feel? I don't think so.
post #28 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmmm...

Though in this particular case, things are far more interesting (to say the least) than usual, and Apple's legal team might have quite a bit to answer for (besides really bad PhotoShop editing).

If Apple's 'copying' claims have merit, then so be it, 1) but they shouldn't be allowed to go around 2 )altering images/tampering with evidence in hopes of cheating the system.

1) Who says they're "allowed"?

2) Who says they did/are?

Examine your assumptions before you post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I think Apple's going to have a hard time, in spite of the fact that Samsung did copy the iPad

So I think Apple will have a tough time with this. Don't almost all HDTVs look exactly the same? The manufacturers can protect unique technology that they offer, but overall physical look and feel? I don't think so.

So far they have a preliminary injunction against Samsung.

How does this translate to having a "hard time"? They'll get as many infringers as hamstrung as possible, if not penalized to the full extent of the applicable laws.

They've already managed to convince courts twice with respect to Samsung. Keep in mind, a lot of the infringements revolve around trade dress.

Your anecdotal observations, are just that: anecdotal.
post #29 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

That aspect ratio would form part of the body of argument about similarity. The focus on in the article itself is merely a reaction to the source article which made the assertion in the first place and seizes on something that, while not specifically argued (if that was the case), is relevant to the overall impression of the design.

If the Galaxy Tab was a foot high and three inches wide, it's highly unlikely to have been subject to challenge. Whatever the article asserts about the aspect ratio it is not unimportant as it seems to suggest.

I think if you would take the time to read through even a bad translation of the filing, you would form a different opinion. The case is about very specific things and aspect ratio is simply not relevant. There is also no benefit to Apple for altering this picture. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Unless you believe German Judges are mindless drones. Mindless drones that only read the 28th page of any 40 page complaints filed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I think Apple's going to have a hard time, in spite of the fact that Samsung did copy the iPad



All computer and phone screens are rectangular and are rounded corners that unique?
All monitors and almost all phones have a flat clear surface that covers the front.
The metal frame around may be somewhat unique or it may be the most generic way to seal the top to bottom.
Centered display: so? You can't get a patent or copyright on a centered display.
Colored icons when switched on: What products don't have colored icons?

So I think Apple will have a tough time with this. Don't almost all HDTVs look exactly the same? The manufacturers can protect unique technology that they offer, but overall physical look and feel? I don't think so.

As some have already stated, this is not a patent case. The standards here have very little to do with standards that might apply in a patent case. Design patents seem to be the closest thing to this in the US, but it still appears decidedly different.
post #30 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I think Apple's going to have a hard time, in spite of the fact that Samsung did copy the iPad



All computer and phone screens are rectangular and are rounded corners that unique?
All monitors and almost all phones have a flat clear surface that covers the front.
The metal frame around may be somewhat unique or it may be the most generic way to seal the top to bottom.
Centered display: so? You can't get a patent or copyright on a centered display.
Colored icons when switched on: What products don't have colored icons?

So I think Apple will have a tough time with this. Don't almost all HDTVs look exactly the same? The manufacturers can protect unique technology that they offer, but overall physical look and feel? I don't think so.

I 100% agree. This look and feel should not be allowed in a patent period... The claims are way to obvious to be considered unique....
post #31 of 81
The image used is not far from this http://media.tested.com/uploads/0/5/...aser_super.jpg


post #32 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

The document does seem to have plenty of photos showing the correct aspect ratio. The document also specs out the exact dimensions of the products as well. The 'doctored' photo seems to be more of an illustration emphasizing the similarities of key design features. For example, they obviously photoshopped out the Samsung logo and have the Tab displaying the App Drawer.

btw- I read the (translated) source article and it seems like the author was trolling pretty hard.

None of the tabs on Samsung's US web site have Samsung logos on them. I would suggest that Samsung not knowing if the device has a logo on it makes it unlikely that Apple could figure it out one way or another. It also makes it unlikely they would bother to photoshop it.

Actual pictures from: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab included for your fun!! I took a screenshot but did not feel like hosting Samsung marketing material.







When you go down the page to find some add-on features the older pictures and videos show the logo. My assumption is that the logo used to be on the old versions of the tablet and still appears in some marketing material, but is not on the actual product. The point is, if Samsung is not even sure if the logo is on it, how can anyone else be reasonably expected to make that determination. I think it is very likely the devices Apple photographed did not have a logo at all. (Since such devices clearly exist).

The photo in the post above mine seems to re-enforce the fact that the actual product has no logo.
post #33 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

I 100% agree. This look and feel should not be allowed in a patent period... The claims are way to obvious to be considered unique....

It's not a patent, it is a "Community Design" (a sort of trade dress) filed in 2004 in the "Handheld Computer" category. It was reviewed and approved. However if Samsung can show prior art in the form of a product previously available to the public that looks like the iPad, it could be ruled invalid, but that might be a bit tough.
post #34 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

It's not a patent, it is a "Community Design" (a sort of trade dress) filed in 2004 in the "Handheld Computer" category. It was reviewed and approved. However if Samsung can show prior art in the form of a product previously available to the public that looks like the iPad, it could be ruled invalid, but that might be a bit tough.

Wow had not noticed the date. That is remarkable.

http://oami.europa.eu/RCDOnline/Requ...0078186058.pdf

Anyone know if that PDF is the whole thing or is there more to it?
post #35 of 81
I wish someone with more graphics capabilities than I have would do a comparison between an actual Macbook Air and this picture on Apple's site. Apple's 'enhanced' the picture so that there's more screen and less aluminum border on the Air. Also the camera is off-center (in the border, up/down) on the actual Air that I'm typing on.

post #36 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

None of the tabs on Samsung's US web site have Samsung logos on them. I would suggest that Samsung not knowing if the device has a logo on it makes it unlikely that Apple could figure it out one way or another. It also makes it unlikely they would bother to photoshop it.

Ah, that explains it. Seems like I've seen pictures of it with and w/o the Samsung logo on the front. Looking at the Galaxy page I see the logo in the video, but not the rest of the pictures. Anyways, right, it's irrelevant whether the logo is there or not. It's not like Ford can make something that looks exactly like a Ferrari and claim that it is different because they put their badge on the front and gave it a different name.
post #37 of 81
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:






Whereas you can see that the camera is properly off-center (up/down within the aluminum frame) on these, and the aluminum frame is wider. They look like un-altered shots:



post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:

...Lots of images removed...

Looks a lot more like a visual error then altered photos. Things do look differently at an Angle then they do straight on. It is also possible there are some differences between different year models, but I do not see any differences at all. The cameras are all in the same location in any case.
post #39 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:

I used to work as a photographer for a graphic design firm. One of our clients was a major inkjet printer manufacturer that we used to make press kits for. We basically photograph the products, pick the nicest photos and then photoshop the heck out of the images to make them look as attractive as possible. I don't think there's anything terribly wrong or misleading with that as long as the products stay true to their form.
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

I used to work as a photographer for a graphic design firm. One of our clients was a major inkjet printer manufacturer that we used to make press kits for. We basically photograph the products, pick the nicest photos and then photoshop the heck out of the images to make them look as attractive as possible. I don't think there's anything terribly wrong or misleading with that as long as the products stay true to their form.

Well, yeah. There's a good reason models and celebrities look so much hotter in mags than in real life. All their facial flaws and body mass are shopped to death.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple accused of faking evidence in EU iPad case against Samsung
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple accused of faking evidence in EU iPad case against Samsung