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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
What's wrong with that? Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like having colored icons is something special... am I missing something here?
btw- I read the (translated) source article and it seems like the author was trolling pretty hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.