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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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 )
I think "investigation" significantly overstates what they actually did.
Whatever you think they did, they did it again.
In a filing in the Netherlands to have the Galaxy S series phones banned, Apple has again manipulated images according to a tweet this morning from Florian Mueller (Foss Patents). Just as they did with the Tab and iPad side by side comparison where the Samsung view was manupulated to appear more identical in size and shape than it really is, they've now done the same with the Galxy smartphones. Engadget has done a followup on Florian's information and posted the images that Apple has faked this time.
The first time, ehh, perhaps, maybe an honest mistake. But repeated again in a different court to make the Galaxy S appear closer to the iPhone look? This is no accident. It's almost assuredly dishonesty at the least IMHO, and borders on fraud.
Comments
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Dutch website accused of faking story about Apple faking evidence
I think "investigation" significantly overstates what they actually did.
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.
...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.
http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/16/german...laxy-tab-10-1/
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
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
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.
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.
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 think "investigation" significantly overstates what they actually did.
Whatever you think they did, they did it again.
In a filing in the Netherlands to have the Galaxy S series phones banned, Apple has again manipulated images according to a tweet this morning from Florian Mueller (Foss Patents). Just as they did with the Tab and iPad side by side comparison where the Samsung view was manupulated to appear more identical in size and shape than it really is, they've now done the same with the Galxy smartphones. Engadget has done a followup on Florian's information and posted the images that Apple has faked this time.
The first time, ehh, perhaps, maybe an honest mistake. But repeated again in a different court to make the Galaxy S appear closer to the iPhone look? This is no accident. It's almost assuredly dishonesty at the least IMHO, and borders on fraud.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/19/d...awsuit-filing/
Is Apple really so desperate to maintain their market share that inventing evidence is worth the risk? Apparently so.