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 - Page 2

post #41 of 81
Quote:
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.

/close thread.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #42 of 81
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.
post #43 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:






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:






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.
post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

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.

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.
post #45 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 aluminium: ... 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: ...

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.
post #46 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

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.

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.
post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

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

Quote:
Finally, in this context to note 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).

It is actually on page 29, still in context of talking about the image in question on page 28.
post #48 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself.

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
post #49 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

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.

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?
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 #50 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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

Apple's complain reveals that

Samsung previous stated publicly that

which originate from other products of the applicant - In particular the iPhone - to transfer elements

but even lays the device into a identical tray

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
post #51 of 81
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.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #52 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maguro View Post

Is anyone proofreading?

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

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

Quote:
2) Why no mention of the other Tab?

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

Quote:
3) Where is the link to this PDF?

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.
post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edelbrp View Post

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

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.
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 #55 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

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

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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.
post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

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.

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

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #57 of 81
Copyright laws, the comedy of capitalism.
post #58 of 81
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.
post #59 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

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
post #60 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

/close thread.

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)
post #61 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:

...Lot of images...

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
post #62 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


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.

Bingo!

Anyone think the judge would never ask to see the real thing? Really?
post #63 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

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

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?
post #64 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?

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.
post #65 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

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 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.
post #66 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

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)

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.
post #67 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, and packaging.

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.
post #68 of 81
"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.
post #69 of 81
...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

post #70 of 81
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...


post #71 of 81
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
post #72 of 81
Maybe the headline should have been,

Quote:
Dutch website accused of faking story about Apple faking evidence

I think "investigation" significantly overstates what they actually did.
post #73 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

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.

Samsung never even got a chance to reply. They found out about the injunction after it was granted.
post #74 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

...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


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.
post #75 of 81
post #76 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

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.

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 )
post #77 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

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.

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
post #78 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

Your eyes are definitely exceptional. Just not exceptionally good.
post #79 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

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

Partially. Seems it's possible the court had no authority to grant one. Apple can apply to the one in Alicante, Spain.
post #80 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

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

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
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
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