Apple accused of faking evidence in EU iPad case against Samsung - Page 2

/close thread.

The other sneaky thing apple did was to have the app drawer open so it looks more like iOS. Honeycomb looks nothing like that. While I love my ipad, the ipad design is the same black rectangle on many tvs and monitors for the last several years including ones made by Samsung from before even the iphone existed.

Good find. I would think that Apple would be proud enough of the design to use real pics, and not altered ones. I am very surprised.

I agree that this is the best telling of the story so far, but it's a bit sad that what is the key point in the whole mess is still in doubt. Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all. The legal weight is in the description of the device. Whether or not one of the pictures has been inexpertly re-sized is irrelevant if that's true.

I don't see how this can really be anything at all anyway. I mean ask yourself ...

If some company came out with a computer that looked exactly the same as the iMac but was 10% shorter in every vertical dimension, would it still be a copy violation? Of course it would.

The fact that the Tab has a different aspect ratio has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that has relevance is if Apple can be proven to be deceptive in it's filing and there seems little evidence for that.

To my eye (and my eyes are exceptional), the camera is off centre (top to bottom) in all of those shots although it varies as to how much.

It's seems likely that these kind of errors are not only not intentional, but a result of the camera's point of view, the way pixels work in general, and the placement of the screen image over the top of the image of the computer. On images that size, a few pixels either way can change the whole look of things.

These pictures are an excellent argument for the altered picture in the court document being *un* intentional in that this is the kind of minor alteration that happens all the time.

IMO this is just another case of the "Apple is evil" meme. If it were any other company no one would think anything of it, but because it's Apple, of course it has to be some kind of evil plot directed by Steve Jobs himself.

He's probably laughing at all of us from his giant brushed aluminium (blood spattered) throne in Hades as we speak.

They aren't proud of it, but they sell it as one of their showcase products. :roll eyes:

Either way, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself. (Translated into English: )


It is actually on page 29, still in context of talking about the image in question on page 28.

Here's one place where you can download it, btw. Otherwise I think you need to jump through some hoops and have a scribd account or something.

http://www.studiogeologie.com/phil/6...y-Tab-10-1.pdf

1) Are you saying those aren't the accurate dimensions for that version of the Tab?

2) Why no mention of the other Tab?

3) Where is the link to this PDF?

Might be a record - five typos in one article. Is anyone proofreading? Really detracts from otherwise good writing.

1. no period at end of first sentence
2. complaint, not complain
3. should be previously
4. cap in the middle of a sentence
5. an identical, not a identical

I'd like to think the judge actually had both products in his hands and didn't rely on a written description and photographs from either party.

Good luck with that. I think AI is comfortable with their stories.

No, I think the question was, does the PDF state the dimensions of the Tab vs. iPad. And the answer is, yes.


There might be, I don't know, I didn't read everything in detail.


I supplied one before your post. I got it from going to the source article which had it linked to, albeit in a in-browser reader, but you can download the original from there in a round about way.

Thanks for the link. I looked through the PDF. Here are the results. There are one or more images on pages 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35. 36. 38, and 39.

On page 28, as you state, you find the one image of the Tab that looks closer to the iPad's aspect ratio. "One" image that looked distorted. Judging by the quality of this PDF only those looking for an argument will find one.

But that's not all… How about iPads that look closer to the Tab's aspect ratio? I found such images on pages 16, 17, 26, 27, 35, 36, and 39. How 'bout them Apples?¡

It's a really bad presentation all around. Images aren't centered, they aren't using similar scales when placed next to each other in most cases. This is just poor effort, not anything unhanded as far as I can tell. Apple's initial complaint still holds water.

Right, there's plenty of raw photos comparing the Tab accurately to the Community Design (CD), imho.


One theory I have is that the various aspects of the iPad have been split up into separate CDs. For example, the UI is a separate CD (double checking this.. I think this is true for the iPhone anyways). I wonder if they used an image prepared to defend the UI on page 28? In which it would be reasonable to discount the differences in form factor to highlight the similarities in the UI?


True, but I've seen worse from legal summaries which were found perfectly valid.

I think we're on the same page here, so to speak.

You need to have everything on documentation in the court of law.

Copyright laws, the comedy of capitalism.

I cant imagine that Apple's $1000 an hour expert intellectual property lawyers unintentionally made the Tab look more like iPad than it does in a case that turns on how they look. That would be gross negligence. It is no coincidence that the app drawer of the Tab in that photo is open to make it look like iOS when Honeycomb looks nothing like it.

This injunction was granted over "Community Design" or, how the HARDWARE of a device is so similar that an "informed" user could be confused. That is why this picture is causing such a stir.

And asking ourselves is pointless. This is a Community Design issue, something with clear guidelines. (that the source site implies this page violates)

The size is important, or Samsung could sue because the ipad looks like a tiny TV

So it's either a case of willful misrepresentation, or Shoddy litigation prep. Either answer isn't acceptable. Granted, EU courts aren't like US courts, but I'm sure Samsung could use this to their advantage either way (or at least attempt to)

I'm working in advertising and this is a normal practice. It's also irrelevant on the issue at hand. Or do you think every product shots in ads are never be enhanced?

In case you're THAT naive (which, from your posts, is very likely). Here, open your eyes.
http://www.photoshopbeforeandafter.c...ortfolio2.html

Bingo!

Anyone think the judge would never ask to see the real thing? Really?

The original article did not talk about the size, they talked about aspect rario. Thinking about it before you posted. If someone copy iMac but make it 16:10, is it still a copy of iMac?

This is RIDICULOUS --

I'm not saying this because I like Apple products -- it's ridiculous because it appears they are pointing to the arguments and "graphic" evidence of Apple's legal team itself.

This would be setting a new president; Lawyers are forbidden from making their clients cases look stronger...


The "screen aspect" sizing issue, was probably more DUE to whoever was making the side-by-side comparison, showing them in a close to the same layout as possible, and while you are trying to FIT everything on screen -- you size things sometimes.

>> Sure, Samsung MIGHT have photographed their tablet under a purple light -- but the fact remains; their Tablet, and ALL of the Android Reference tablets, are pretty identical to Apple Tablets. But that REALLY isn't the lawsuit here; it's that ON TOP OF pretty similar products, Samsung used icons and apps and about a thousand other things that were similar to Apple's and in their advertising, did their best to look like an iPhone/iPad so the consumer would think; "just as good."

The slight difference in screen proportions, isn't going to be evident to MOST people as a distinguishing characteristic.


>>> The ONLY reason, all these Androids, tablets and new smart phones look like Apple products -- is because they have the product everybody would prefer to have.

Now sure, there are a lot of Android phone lovers now -- but let's look at Microsofts phone -- they use "grids" rather than these icons, but it's a tiny refinement that is HUGELY different.

There are a million prior art issues we call could discuss forever -- but there are also a MILLION ways that anyone could have done a smart phone or "pad" and we are only in this world where everything looks like an iPhone BECAUSE -- well, why should I repeat myself?

Everyone would have moved onto another "me to" look. Dell could be doing rose-petalled covers and Toshiba could have it look like the grill on a car. I don't particularly THINK that Apple's iPhone and iPad design is the best thing ever -- it's basically an efficient, sleek, black, bar of soap.

>> If I were designing things-- I'd have edges you could grip, a built-in shock absorbing bar that squeezed in when you are trying to store it or shove it in a pocket. I could think of a million improvements.

But Android and Samson and all the rest, aren't making BETTER crap than Apple -- they are making stuff that LOOKS like an Apple because they are glomming onto the market leader.


>> If it requires lawsuits to force innovation and something beyond black and white bars of soap in people's pockets -- then so be it.

THIS is what I'm talking about.

The point is; YES, the iPad and iPhone look like a Tiny, sleek black TV. But of course -- someone has glossed over the REAL lawsuit -- which had the Galaxy Tab with a "sun flower" for their photo viewing application -- and just about every icon on the home screen, was a slight twist on the choices for the Apple iPhone. Who THINKS a Sunflower automatically says to them; "A graphical database for all my family photos?"

>> And the other point is; ALL these phones and pads look like Tiny TV's BECAUSE Apple's super cool, sells like hotcakes device looks like a Tiny TV.

The human race did not just sit around for millennia, waiting for a communications device that looked like a tiny TV -- it is a convenient form-factor for a screen, but that's it.

Out of the infinite design choices all these companies could make -- they ALL look like iPhones and the Galaxy Tab looks almost EXACTLY like an iPhone in many of their previous print ads.

Do realize the precedent if Samsung wins this?

Law teams will now be liable for making a strong case. The WHOLE POINT, of a court case, is that each side makes its strongest case, and TRIES TO WIN, and in the battle, the truth comes out.


>> If the Samsung lawyers did NOT get the evidence thrown out because of a minor flaw in "aspect ratio" -- then if it's THAT big of a deal, it's really the Samsung lawyers who were negligent.

Otherwise, our legal system will have to stand upside down on its head, and all the lawyers will have to be HONEST and only present the fairest, non-prejudicial evidence....

But in REALITY, if Samsung's lawyers did not "object" to the evidence in court on these grounds at the time of trial -- it doesn't look like they have NEW evidence that could be used for a court case -- it looks like they've got a NEW rebuttal, that got delayed because they didn't think of it at the time.


.... Imagine the millions of billable court hours and filings all these lawyers could have if they could keep going back to a court case and saying; "You know your honor -- I know we lost this last time on appeal, but I just thought of this really cool thing I could have said after watching CSI..."


>> This has to be one of the LAMEST lawsuits in a history of lame lawsuits.

Sorry, fail troll. Read the actual complaint and you will see many images showing the 2 devices side by side in their correct aspect ratios.

Samsung are fucked, they even pack the Galaxy the same way apple do, pathetic.

"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. ( Quote )

I wonder what all of the fuss is about. They took a picture that was published by a third party that proves a point. Aspect ratios have nothing to do with what Samsung puts on their screen. They just make it look as much like an iPad as they can and that is not allowed in the EU. There are prior judgements like the Rolex case mentioned that resulted in a ban on importing and selling copies even under another name.

...and just like that (with no training or decent tools) I am better at photo editing than Apple's entire multi-million dollar legal team

After all this plus the Motorola news, one has to wonder how many members of the management team at Samsung have this on their minds...

Hi,

I have a Ipad 2. It is great. My 3 year old daughter can use it with ease. Before I bought it I had compared it with Galaxy Tab 10.1 new edition (thinner one). Yes, they are touch screen tablets with rectangular shape, but they are different inside and out.

If this report is true, then Apple should be thrown out. They came to the court with images which have obviously been made to look similar? Remember this case is based upon 'Look and feel'. The can not do this. Or maybe Apple senses that they can not win Samsung if they presented correct images?

To all fanboys or shall I say royall fans, have you actually compared Ipad2 and Galaxy Tab 10.1? They are very different

Maybe the headline should have been,


I think "investigation" significantly overstates what they actually did.

Samsung never even got a chance to reply. They found out about the injunction after it was granted.

I think the lawsuit specifically showed an ad and a "home screen" on the Galaxy tab that looked almost exactly like Apple's.

You are showing how the Galaxy tab looks now.

Also, Samsung's advertisement also showed their tablet in the vertical position.

So your point that they CAN look different, does not reflect that the actual ADVERTISEMENTS Samsung made were very, very close.

Injunction lifted
http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/16/german...laxy-tab-10-1/

Do you have a link for the ads? I went and looked at some promo material and tv advertisements and I would say 99% of the time the Tab is used in landscape mode and not once did I see someone open the app draw.

I would say based on my experience from watching the promo material that Samsung went out of their way to make the Tab not look like an iPad (at one point a lady was trading in her iPad2 for a Tab because it didn't play Flash )

I just looked over the request for injunction and there is no such ad. Although there are several other pictures that show the Tab as thinner.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1

Your eyes are definitely exceptional. Just not exceptionally good.

Partially. Seems it's possible the court had no authority to grant one. Apple can apply to the one in Alicante, Spain.

This is, of course, a lie.

How did Samsung get a chance to file a pleading if they didn't find out about the case until after the injunction was granted?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...clone_ban.html