or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Samsung of introducing doctored and misleading exhibits, false claims
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accuses Samsung of introducing doctored and misleading exhibits, false claims

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Apple has raised a series of objections to Samsung's proposed exhibits intended for use during cross examination today, accusing the company of repeatedly creating evidence that is distorted, obscured or otherwise misleading while also raising false objections to Apple's own evidence.

Among the objections Apple raised was an exhibit created by Samsung that the company described as "misleading" because Samsung had altered the "accused devices" to "remove the screen, which may distract the jury from the asserted design," added graphics "that obscure portions of the accused devices, distracting from the overall impression of the accused designs," used images that "are not to scale or are misleadingly scaled," and "only show partial views of the asserted designs and trade dress."

In regard to a slide comparing iPhone 3GS to "several Samsung accused products," Samsung complained back that "there is nothing misleading or distracting because Samsung merely whites out the screen to allow a comparison of the overall design without that element, and then a comparison of the distinct features and the top and bottom of the phone."



A comparison of the two devices with the screen visible would clearly not be in Samsung's interest when defending against Apple's arguments that it has "slavishly copied" the iPhone. Recent testimony from Apple's iOS head Scott Forestall noted how Samsung had "copied many of the icons we created. they copied them blatantly and directly," specifically noting examples such as the merge call button.



Doctors of evidence

One Samsung exhibit Apple accused of being "misleading and confusing" because it compared "the D'305 patent and a photograph of a Samsung phone that includes the body style that is not accused of infringing the D'305 patent."

Apple complained that another exhibit proposed by Samsung was misleading because "the scale of the D'899 patent is enlarged to make it appear substantially thicker than the accused Galaxy Tab 10.1."

Last August, Samsung itself raised the claim that Apple had "reportedly doctored evidence" in Germany after an Android enthusiast blogger accused the iPad maker of using images that depicted the Galaxy Tab as having a screen ratio closer to the iPad that it did (below).



In that case however, the screen ratio used by Samsung was not at issue. Instead, Apple's claims described a strategic effort by Samsung to "slavishly imitate" Apple's striking product designs in a way that violates Apple's "valuable commercial rights."

Objections over vague, false objections

Apple also took issue with how Samsung was presenting its own objections related to witness exhibits and demonstratives.

"Rather than objecting only to the limited supplemental witness disclosures and Mr Forstall's materials," Apple stated in a filing, "Samsung re-objected and added new objections for all five of these witnesses' direct exhibits and demonstratives.

"Samsung asserted 125+ new and old objections to 95+ exhibits or demonstrative slides. Its objections spanned six single-spaced pages and used vague phrases like 'outside the scope' and 'untimely disclosed.'

"Samsung disclosed its objections late at night (at 12:26 am), forcing Apple to scramble to meet the Thursday 8:00 am briefing deadline. Yet upon request, Samsung refused to identify the specific objections that it intended to brief within the parties' five page limit."

Apple's filing further added "Samsung's 'object a lot, but vaguely' approach misled the Court into sustaining many of its objections -- including barebones, "untimely disclosed' ones that were patently false."
post #2 of 62

I guess this means Apple is serious. I can't help but be impressed with how they're just relentlessly keeping up the pressure. 

post #3 of 62

Wow. Just wow. This has to be made into a movie in the next couple years. Something along the lines of the Facebook movie seems proper. Such a riveting story.

GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #4 of 62
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
I guess this means Apple is serious. I can't help but be impressed with how they're just relentlessly keeping up the pressure. 

 

Thermonuclear.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #5 of 62
Are we really surprised? Did we think Samsung would be predatory and underhanded in their engineering, marketing and general business practices but not when it came to their legal team?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 62
post #7 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I guess this means Apple is serious. 

I don't think anyone anywhere doubted they were.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 62
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Forbes is live blogging the trial. Phil Schiller being cross examined now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/03/judge-berates-samsung-over-excluded-evidence-calls-for-end-to-theatrics-in-apple-patent-suit-live-blog/

 

How do you liveblog a trial? Why is that even allowed?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #9 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

How do you liveblog a trial? Why is that even allowed?
Judge said the trial would be open to the public, so I guess that means you can blog from it.
post #10 of 62

As the Apple Turns, new soap opera if they were still a fashionable thing to watch

post #11 of 62
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
As the Apple Turns, new soap opera if they were still a fashionable thing to watch


The Butt and the Bald has more intrigue. It's less intriguing, sure, but there's more intrigue.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #12 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Forbes is live blogging the trial. Phil Schiller being cross examined now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/03/judge-berates-samsung-over-excluded-evidence-calls-for-end-to-theatrics-in-apple-patent-suit-live-blog/

 

There's some good information in there. Each side has 25 hours of trial time. Judge Koh said objections would use up some of that time. Now we know why Samsung is filing so much crap - they want to make Apple use up their allotted time on useless objections and clutter, leaving less time for other, more important stuff.

post #13 of 62

LOL.

 

There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke "Well, they're confusing".

 

Priceless.

 

EDIT: Samsung shows a chart of a survey that claims only 1% of buyers think phone design is an important criteria for choosing a device. Apple previously showed a survey that said 85% of people considered design important.

 

Really Samsung? Maybe your buyers are less concerned, but to claim only 1%? Schiller objected saying it's worthless without knowing the methedology of the study.


Edited by EricTheHalfBee - 8/3/12 at 11:59am
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

LOL.

There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke" Well, they're confusing".

Priceless.
lol.gif
post #15 of 62
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke" Well, they're confusing".

 

This whole thing is getting sad. It's like… the Three Stooges up there against legitimate lawyers, but these stooges are mirror-stooges (curly mustache and top hats), so you don't want them to win. It's hilarious to watch, and they certainly deserve to lose big time, but it's getting ever more depressing that they can't get it together.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #16 of 62

So Apple did in fact doctor the image to make the Galaxy Tab appear to be the same size, used the device in a vertical position when the tab's focus is horizontal.  The point is Apple did in fact do the same thing regardless of what they were claiming in that case they are just as guilty.

post #17 of 62
Forstall says he has 1,000 people working DIRECTLY for him. Huh? I can see that many people (or more) working on iOS, but working directly for Scott? Seems a bit high.
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

EDIT: Samsung shows a chart of a survey that claims only 1% of buyers think phone design is an important criteria for choosing a device. Apple previously showed a survey that said 85% of people considered design important.

 

Really Samsung? Maybe your buyers are less concerned, but to claim only 1%? Schiller objected saying it's worthless without knowing the methedology of the study.

That was taken from a user survey from Apple, not one by Samsung. On redirect Schiller got a chance to explain the methodology of the survey:

 

11:47 AM Schiller is being given a chance to explain the chart that had just one percent of customers listing design as important to their decision. He says that in this instance people were asked what element, other than price, would be the most important.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/3/12 at 12:14pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

LOL.

There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke "Well, they're confusing".

Priceless.


If that's really true then hats off to Schiller for the quick response, that's one for the ages!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #20 of 62

Wait, is Apple saying they invented icons and the rectangle and the cell phone?

 

 

/s

post #21 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That was taken from a user survey from Apple, not one by Samsung. On redirect Schiller got a chance to explain the methodology of the survey:

11:47 AM
 Schiller is being given a chance to explain the chart that had just one percent of customers listing design as important to their decision. He says that in this instance people were asked what element, other than price, would be the most important.
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
post #22 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That was taken from a user survey from Apple, not one by Samsung. On redirect Schiller got a chance to explain the methodology of the survey:

 

11:47 AM Schiller is being given a chance to explain the chart that had just one percent of customers listing design as important to their decision. He says that in this instance people were asked what element, other than price, would be the most important.

 

Yeah, saw that. They're taking a very specific set of criteria, coming up with 1% and then trying to insinuate to the jury that only 1% of the people care about design.

 

People buy things based on looks. Sure it's shallow, but everyone does it. For Samsung to say only 1% of people find looks/design important is beyond stupid.

post #23 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?

 

It's not confusing at all, just different questions.

 

For example, let's say you asked people "Besides price, what is the next most important thing to you?"

 

Most would probably pick things like features, carrier, capacity, size, screen quality and so on. In this case 1% picked design at the most important after price.

 

However, if you asked people what are the top 3 things you look for, you might get "design" showing up in most of their lists. It's just a different way of looking at the data.

 

Samsung tried to make it appear only 1% care about design (or another way to see it, 99% don't care), which is completely wrong. Just look at all the arguments online about the looks of the iPhone or whether the new GSIII is ugly or not. Looks (design) matters to people. A lot more than 1%.

post #24 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

It's not confusing at all, just different questions.

For example, let's say you asked people "Besides price, what is the next most important thing to you?"

Most would probably pick things like features, carrier, capacity, size, screen quality and so on. In this case 1% picked design at the most important after price.

However, if you asked people what are the top 3 things you look for, you might get "design" showing up in most of their lists. It's just a different way of looking at the data.

Samsung tried to make it appear only 1% care about design (or another way to see it, 99% don't care), which is completely wrong. Just look at all the arguments online about the looks of the iPhone or whether the new GSIII is ugly or not. Looks (design) matters to people. A lot more than 1%.
I agree that the 1% seems small, but the way you phrased bothe questions doesn't seem like it would generate a different response.
post #25 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?

 

No.  His point was that the second survey quoted asked a different question from the first and that the Samsung lawyer purposely left out the question to imply that the results were at odds with each other. 

 

84% said that design was important or very important to them on the first survey.

 

1% said that design was the next thing they would think of after price when choosing a phone on the second survey.

post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

No.  His point was that the second survey quoted asked a different question from the first and that the Samsung lawyer purposely left out the question to imply that the results were at odds with each other. 

84% said that design was important or very important to them on the first survey.

1% said that design was the next thing they would think of after price when choosing a phone on the second survey.
So the two surveys had a different population responding?
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

So Apple did in fact doctor the image to make the Galaxy Tab appear to be the same size, used the device in a vertical position when the tab's focus is horizontal.  The point is Apple did in fact do the same thing regardless of what they were claiming in that case they are just as guilty.

 

There's only two things you have to know about this that makes your argument invalid.

 

1) The issue they were arguing there was trade dress.  

 

2) In cases of trade dress, aspect ratio would be irrelevant

 

In other words you can't copy someone else's design and then just make it skinnier.  If that were possible then there wouldn't be much point to the protections at all.  Since skinny or fat is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the image was re-sized (many think automatically and by mistake). 

post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


So the two surveys had a different population responding?

 

No, the question is different (although it may appear to be the same when you first read it).  

 

EricTheHalfBee explained it better above.  

post #29 of 62

Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?

post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


If that's really true then hats off to Schiller for the quick response, that's one for the ages!

 

I think if they can get past Scott Forestall this afternoon they will be okay.  He has a temper and is most likely (IMO of course) to f*ck things up.  

post #31 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?

 

nope

post #32 of 62
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
I think if they can get past Scott Forestall this afternoon they will be okay.  He has a temper and is most likely (IMO of course) to f*ck things up.  

 

He believes with every fiber of his being that he's in the right, so I doubt he'll do anything but help Apple's case.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?

 

yeah they did
1000

 


http://www.cybersharq.com/did-apple-doctor-evidence-in-samsung.html


Edited by Just_Me - 8/3/12 at 1:02pm
post #34 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

No, the question is different (although it may appear to be the same when you first read it).  

EricTheHalfBee explained it better above.  
Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.
post #35 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.

 

You're not thick it is a bit confusing.  

 

The way I understand it the first survey has a question like: "tick off the items that are important to you in regards buying a smartphone" followed by a list of attributes each with five radio buttons after it.  The radio buttons are the same for all attributes listed and go "not important," "somewhat important," "important," "very important." (or something similar, I'm guessing here).  

 

On that survey 84% ticked off design as being either important or very important.  

 

On the next survey the question is something like "After price, what's the next most important thing you consider when buying a phone."  Followed by a list of things like carriers, roaming, contract length, design, size, etc. etc. etc. (we don't really know what the list is here).  The users are asked to rate these things as second, third, fourth  etc. 

 

On that survey only 1% picked design as the second thing they would consider after price.  

 

So they could be the same people and be squared with each other because although 84% think design is important or very important, they might be more concerned with the length of their contract or what carrier they were with slightly more than the design overall.  

 

The surveys also *could* have been done with different groups, in different countries etc. We just don't know.  

They could have been done years apart also AFAIK. 

post #36 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

 

yeah they did
1000

 


http://www.cybersharq.com/did-apple-doctor-evidence-in-samsung.html

 

I said nope because it's a trade dress issue.  

Except for extreme cases, it doesn't matter if it's shorter/longer or if the aspect ratio is different in cases of trade dress.  In fact it helps to suss out the differences by making them the same size in this way.  It makes the evidence clearer and makes the relevant differences if any, stand out more.  

post #37 of 62

Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:

 

 

 

Quote:

In August 2011, in response to Apple Computer's patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung, the latter argued that Apple's iPad was effectively modeled on the visual tablets that appear aboard spaceship Discovery in the Space Odyssey film, which legally constitute "prior art". Legally, prior art is information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date that might be relevant to the patent's claim of originality.[167] Samsung appealed specifically to a clip appearing on YouTube arguing

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a still image taken from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film "2001: A Space Odyssey." In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. As with the design claimed by the D'889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor.[168]

 

And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.

 

Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.

post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:

 

 

 

 

And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.

 

Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.

 

I'm gonna pretend you don't actually believe a word you wrote, so my head doesn't explode. The fact that you're defending that a non functional prop from a science fiction movie 40 years ago can be considered prior art is mindblowing. Please try to take that further and imagine in how many cases that would apply, and if this is indeed a legitimate standard what prior art CANT be found in science fiction movies. The whole concept is ridiculous. Go ahead and hate Apple for whatever reason, but the problem is when you let that hate distort any critical thinking, and objectivity you might have, and automatically 'root' and defend the other side no matter what. 

post #39 of 62
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad.

 

Please try to keep up. You can't use science fiction films as prior art. And your use of Wikipedia as proof of anything is laughable.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #40 of 62
This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on the Internet in20 years (yes, including years before the commercial web). I presume it must be trolling, but really, a prop in a sci fi movie as prior art? It is a prop, not an invention. The judge quite properly excluded it because the assertion was incredibly stupid and has no place in a court of law. The lawyers for Samsung should be (and might be) ashamed of themselves for such a frivolous motion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple accuses Samsung of introducing doctored and misleading exhibits, false claims
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Samsung of introducing doctored and misleading exhibits, false claims