Apple's Evidence in Samsung Tablet Case Reportedly Flawed

[SandynJosh]

It is unclear whether the image has actually been intentionally manipulated to make the Galacy Tab 10.1 appear more similar to the iPad, as some sources have suggested that Apple may have utilized an image of an early Galaxy Tab 10.1 prototype. Regardless of whether the image is obsolete or doctored, the German court responsible for the injunction is not likely to take kindly to the error when a full hearing on the matter is conducted beginning on August 25th.

I think it makes an ocean of difference. If Apple doctored the image, then it's a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.

If, however, Apple used an early Samsung prototype in their argument, it may have been done to show that Samsung had intent from the beginning to copy Apple's design, or used Apple's design and trade dress as a basis for tweaking what they came to market with. It all depends on the context of the photo's use.

 

[Rafterman]

Difference being whoever took that picture got royalties for the photo it sold to both Time and Newsweek and/or it was public domain.

That was a booking photo. No one sold it or got royalties. And even if so, how is making a black man look more dark (and therefore more menacing) than he is OK if royalties are involved?

 

[chrono1081]

I love how they jumped on this article like a fat kid at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Curious, did anyone actually read the article?

This requirement is the same in Germany, confirms Florian Müller, a German intellectual property consultant. He reckons the flawed visual evidence could have serious consequences for the case, "provided that any differences between the product shown in Apple's complaint and the actual product are outcome-determinative," says Müller.

He doubts that Apple's lawyers attempted to mislead the court. Müller argues the picture in the German complaint could be of a pre-release prototype, which showed up during discovery procedures in Apple's case against Samsung in the U.S. last April.

For those unfamiliar with Florian Müller, he is a noted intellectual property consultant and open source advocate.

Apple hired Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer to represent them in the Netherlands case. It is a large, global firm (27 offices). Odds are research and document compiling was handed off to an intern/law student, and an earlier version of the Galaxy 10.1 was submitted by accident and slipped past the attorneys.

Embarrassing? Yes. Possibly harmful to Apple's case? Very much so. Enough to accuse Apple of duplicity? Hardly.

The amount of haters Macrumors attracts is ridiculous. They all try and paint Apple as this horrid evil dominating company and in the end it just makes them look foolish. Usually the only argument they can come up with includes the words "fanboy" and "kool-aid".

That being said I still don't think this is an issue like people say it is. If it was a real issue SAMSUNG would have been all over this, not some dutch website. I believe there is something here we do not know.

I also think that this would have been an accident. No company is stupid enough to photoshop something used in court, especially a device tons of people use and are familiar with. Not to mention they had the physical devices in court so why photoshop an image? Clearly an accident or oversight.

 

[BaldiMac]

Why does it matter if the aspect ratio is different if the aspect ratio is not a part of Apple's claims?

 

[stuffradio]

Having worked in litigation graphics for a few years with TrialGraphix, I can assure you that this practice is entirely commonplace. This will have little influence on the decision.

Maybe smaller companies can get away with immorality, but this could turn into a big PR disaster for Apple if everyone learns about it, and Apple will be forced to dismiss the case.

 

[KnightWRX]

That being said I still don't think this is an issue like people say it is. If it was a real issue SAMSUNG would have been all over this, not some dutch website. I believe there is something here we do not know.

We'll know how big an issue this is on August 25th, when Samsung get their chance to be all over this.

Seriously folks : Samsung has not yet had a say in this case. Aside from a pre-claims letter (one written without actual knowledge of Apple's claims), they have had no chance to present their side.

BTW guys, who are these haters you keep talking about ? I don't see any of them.

 

[stuffradio]

The amount of haters Macrumors attracts is ridiculous. They all try and paint Apple as this horrid evil dominating company and in the end it just makes them look foolish. Usually the only argument they can come up with includes the words "fanboy" and "kool-aid".

That being said I still don't think this is an issue like people say it is. If it was a real issue SAMSUNG would have been all over this, not some dutch website. I believe there is something here we do not know.

I also think that this would have been an accident. No company is stupid enough to photoshop something used in court, especially a device tons of people use and are familiar with. Not to mention they had the physical devices in court so why photoshop an image? Clearly an accident or oversight.

It's not an accident or oversight. Google is an evil company, you'd agree with that. Apple is like Google. They have their own interests in mind, and want to buy out the smaller guys. (Lala was bought out and shut down. I know it was a talent acquisition.)

Apple is not the angel you think they are.

 

[r.j.s]

Why does it matter if the aspect ratio is different if the aspect ratio is not a part of Apple's claims?

Because the aspect ratio really shows that the devices are not all that similar, otherwise, Apple could claim that any tablet that is just a screen with a bezel is infringing on the iPad's design. Samsung intentionally made the aspect ratio different so that it wouldn't look exactly like an iPad.

 

[Claefer]

The amount of haters Macrumors attracts is ridiculous. They all try and paint Apple as this horrid evil dominating company and in the end it just makes them look foolish.

The only foolish one here is Apple. They knowingly altered an image because they knew their case was weak and litigating is their desperate attempt to fight off Samsung, a true innovator.

Fact is that Apple is scared of Samsung. The iPad is just an iFad.

 

[r.j.s]

Fact is that Apple is scared of Samsung. The iPad is just an iFad.

I don't know that Apple is scared of Samsung, but they are trying to keep the competition down - and I don't think that is smart. Competition will keep Apple in check, if they aren't being stomped on for making a tablet device.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because the aspect ratio really shows that the devices are not all that similar, otherwise, Apple could claim that any tablet that is just a screen with a bezel is infringing on the iPad's design. Samsung intentionally made the aspect ratio different so that it wouldn't look exactly like an iPad.

Could claim? Apple registered their design. It has specific claims that Apple considers unique. None of those claims mentioned an aspect ratio.

 

[Claefer]

I don't know that Apple is scared of Samsung, but they are trying to keep the competition down - and I don't think that is smart. Competition will keep Apple in check, if they aren't being stomped on for making a tablet device.

Well, I don't think Apple would be lawyering up against Samsung if they didn't think the Galaxy Tab had an honest chance at dethroning the iFad as the true tablet innovation.

 

[r.j.s]

Could claim? Apple registered their design. It has specific claims that Apple considers unique. None of those claims mentioned an aspect ratio.

Unique? Really? That's like Louisville Slugger saying no one else can sell baseball bats using their unique design.

There are only so many ways to design a tablet.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't know that Apple is scared of Samsung, but they are trying to keep the competition down - and I don't think that is smart. Competition will keep Apple in check, if they aren't being stomped on for making a tablet device.

If Apple wasn't scared of the competition, they wouldn't be litigating the heck out of them and trying to get injunction after injunction over trivial matters like "rectangles with rounded corners and colorful icons".

It seems strange to me with their initial strong showing in the tablet market and all the sales problem the competition has that Apple would already resort to litigation.

 

[r.j.s]

Well, I don't think Apple would be lawyering up against Samsung if they didn't think the Galaxy Tab had an honest chance at dethroning the iFad as the true tablet innovation.

If Apple wasn't scared of the competition, they wouldn't be litigating the heck out of them and trying to get injunction after injunction over trivial matters like "rectangles with rounded corners and colorful icons".

It seems strange to me with their initial strong showing in the tablet market and all the sales problem the competition has that Apple would already resort to litigation.

I don't know, maybe you are right, maybe they are scared.

 

[BaldiMac]

Unique? Really? That's like Louisville Slugger saying no one else can sell baseball bats using their unique design.

There are only so many ways to design a tablet.

Maybe you should read the specific claims before talking about how general they are. Personally, I think they are a bit too obvious for the most part. But that doesn't change the fact that they don't mention aspect ratio. Which would make the outrage in this thread a bit uninformed.

 

[r.j.s]

Maybe you should read the specific claims before talking about how general they are. Personally, I think they are a bit too obvious for the most part. But that doesn't change the fact that they don't mention aspect ratio. Which would make the outrage in this thread a bit uninformed.

I think the real point is that Apple misrepresented the Tab in order to make it look more like an iPad. If it doesn't quite look like an iPad, then work with what it does look like, don't change the Tab's design to fit your argument.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Not sure if they are scared.
But they are looking at smart phone market, and despite having the best selling smart phone, there are a lot more Android phones being sold, and they may worry that that will happen to the tablet market too and they are doing anything to crush the opposition?

Or maybe the next iPhone and iPad aren't really revolutionary enough and they are worried about being dethroned as the maker of the must have smart phone and tablet?

 

[SwissMac2]

This will be especially harmful to Apple because the injunction was granted based on Apple's complaint alone, Samsung having had no chance to reply or file opposition and the judge not doing a hearing.

That's not true, although Samsung did claim this. They lied. Samsung did indeed reply to the request for an injunction, their evidence was presented to the court, and the fact they are lying about it and trying to win a PR fight here only illustrates that they have a weak legal argument and so have to resort to other means:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...sented_its_surprise_in_eu_ipad_clone_ban.html

 

[chrono1081]

It's not an accident or oversight. Google is an evil company, you'd agree with that. Apple is like Google. They have their own interests in mind, and want to buy out the smaller guys. (Lala was bought out and shut down. I know it was a talent acquisition.)

Apple is not the angel you think they are.

I never said Apple is an angel. Nor do I think Google is evil. They are both businesses. What a majority of people don't understand is businesses are in business to make money, which creates jobs for the rest of us.

People think Google is evil because they sell your information. Well thats the price you pay for using their extensive range of free services. Free is never truly free.

People think Apple is evil because they protect their patents. While I do not agree with the galaxy tab law suit I agree with the lawsuit against the phone they released that looks just like an iPhone (some call it the iSamsung).

What I think is ridiculous is how dramatic everyone gets over these lawsuits simply because "Apple" is mentioned in it. They never seem to care if its another company, mostly because other companies don't make the news.

We'll know how big an issue this is on August 25th, when Samsung get their chance to be all over this.

Seriously folks : Samsung has not yet had a say in this case. Aside from a pre-claims letter (one written without actual knowledge of Apple's claims), they have had no chance to present their side.

BTW guys, who are these haters you keep talking about ? I don't see any of them.

I wasn't aware that Samsung didn't get to say anything yet, but as for the haters they are all over these forums. I could rattle off names but last time I did that I got a warning. Seriously threads like these attract the same trollish forum members.

 

[litchie]

If I were apple's lawyer, I would argue that this photo is from Samsung's website.

 

[Claefer]

I don't know, maybe you are right, maybe they are scared.

One can only hope that news of Apple's latest attempt at reality distortion will bring them down a notch or two or ten.

Observing the progress of Apple over the last several years has shown that they are really talented at marketing mediocre products.

When true innovators like Samsung release a product like the Galaxy Tab that outperforms, outshines, and outclasses the iFad it shatters Apple's putty-soft ego. It's time to tab.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think the real point is that Apple misrepresented the Tab in order to make it look more like an iPad. If it doesn't quite look like an iPad, then work with what it does look like, don't change the Tab's design to fit your argument.

Why does it matter what it looks like in the photo? I would think that what matters is whether or not the Tab uses the design elements that Apple registered.

From AppleInsider:
"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."

Nothing about the aspect ratio.

 

[litchie]

Fact is that Apple is scared of Samsung. The iPad is just an iFad.

Wouldn't you be scared if your competitor is copying everything you are doing, even the product packaging?

I will be very very scared.

 

[r.j.s]

Why does it matter what it looks like in the photo? I would think that what matters is whether or not the Tab uses the design elements that Apple registered.

From AppleInsider:
"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."

Nothing about the aspect ratio.

You know ... you just described my TV.