Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Evidence in Samsung Tablet Case Reportedly Flawed

Hurda said:
Absolutely.



And they conveniently removed the Samsung-logo at the front from these pictures, too

Making mistakes (using the wrong aspect-ratio of images etc.) is one thing, but photoshopping pictures to fool a judge is a whole different ballgame.

Edit:
Also, it doesn't matter if a unreleased prototype looked like the iPad, it's only important what version lands on the retail-shelves.
Click to expand...

Would it help you to know there is no Samsung logo on the front of the galaxy tab...Or maybe Samsung is taking it out of all the pictures on their site too! http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab


Where do you people come up with this stuff. Apparently critical thinking skills are completely wiped out.
 
All this makes me feel so uneasy about buying an iPad. I haven't bought one yet, but I plan to. I probably still will.

Apple makes great products... it's just their business ethics are rather questionable when it comes to competition. They're great with their customers, but poison to the tech industry: That said, they do promote a fair bit of competition at the same time, so there is some counterbalance.
 
MadusMaximus said:
No. They didn't. Samsung have TWO versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. They showed off one design before Apple announced the iPad 2, which looks almost identical to the iPad 1, then they went back to redesign it after the iPad 2 came out. Do you people not remember them saying they need to go and do some work or something to that effect after the iPad 2 was shown off?

Do a Google Image search for "Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1". Look how you see two different products. One is the version they announced before the iPad 2, and the other is the one they changed it to.

Does nobody remember longer than 2 months into the past these days?
Click to expand...

False, the original tab was like the new one but fatter.

If you want to look at it search for Galaxy Tab 10.1v as it was named and sold by Vodafone.

Before saying others doesn't remember you have to be sure to remember the right thing.
 
jagolden said:
Some legal assistant just lost their job.
Click to expand...

Or not. We only have this word of the site that the details are what they say they are. We haven't actually seen the paperwork that was filed with the court. It is possible that in fact Apple didn't change anything and there would be a phrasing attached to the photo along the lines of "although Samsung's promo photos show a 16:9 unit (see attached promo photo" this side by side photo of an actual unit along with an ipad shows that in fact it is the same 4:3 as the ipad". A phrasing that perhaps the source article is overlooking so as to get more hits from both the Apple defenders and haters.

Also there is some question about the issue that Samsung had no clue about the complaint being filed before the injunction was ordered. There are several sites claiming that in fact they admit they were told but they didn't respond because they didn't think the injunction request would be granted.
 
If it's true, it's true...but a lot of people hate Apple just to hate Apple...

Hurda said:
Absolutely.



And they conveniently removed the Samsung-logo at the front from these pictures, too

Making mistakes (using the wrong aspect-ratio of images etc.) is one thing, but photoshopping pictures to fool a judge is a whole different ballgame.

Edit:
Also, it doesn't matter if a unreleased prototype looked like the iPad, it's only important what version lands on the retail-shelves.
Click to expand...


First, are we even sure that is the photo submitted into evidence by :apple:? I'm pretty sure a lawyer and/or an :apple: representative would know better. Second, I'm pretty sure everyone in the court room would be well aware that they'd bring in the REAL products to compare.
 
vrDrew said:
Did any of you Android fools stop and ask yourself where Apple got the photo of the Galaxy from?

Answer: From Samsung itself, as part of their discovery process. It showed an image of the proposed Samsung Tablet that was being shown to resellers (like the German company that is selling the Galaxy.) If nothing else, this shows Samsung was guilty of intent in terms of their copying of the iPad. They certainly sold the Galaxy in Germany as a product that looked a heck of a lot like the iPad.
Click to expand...

Any proof of this?
 
Hurda said:
Edit:
Also, it doesn't matter if a unreleased prototype looked like the iPad, it's only important what version lands on the retail-shelves.
Click to expand...

yep. I can think of plenty of reasons why the prototype had the same ratio. One off the top of my head is they wanted to test the OS and the other hardware to show board and CEO kind of what it is going to look like. Why make a custom run for the screen when you have some that are close enough already being made. They just pulled some of the iPad screens off the line to do it. Cheaper and quicker.
They do some basic testing and research with no plans to ever produce that design but it works fine for testing and cheaper. They were not doing anything wrong there doing testing with off the line parts.

For selling they changed the design for what they wanted.

Do not use prototypes to try to kill something design in a case. Apple screwed up big time.
 
charlituna said:
There are several sites claiming that in fact they admit they were told but they didn't respond because they didn't think the injunction request would be granted.
Click to expand...

Mmm, no. Samsung didn't knew about the injuction. Read those sites more carefully
 
Chinamao said:
If apple is just as stupid as these guys think, the iPad and the iPhone would have never came out. Making money by suing other guys is not apple's business. They just want to protect their our patent.
Click to expand...

It isn't a patent. It has nothing to do with patents, and you can't even patent this stuff. It's Trade Dress. It's about trademarks and design and so on. It isn't just their products themselves that look similar, it was (before they changed it due to this case) the fact that their custom theme for Android made it look more iOS like, it's the packaging being almost identical in style and design. It's the adverts they used. It's a combination of many things and Samsung are apparently guilty (at least guilty enough for two legal jurisdictions to give a preliminary ruling in Apples favour) of infringing one several of these aspects.
 
So many opinions from people who are neither a) patent attorneys; b) familiar with the patenting and filing processes; c) educated about the actual filing in question; nor d) insiders at Apple who know what's going on.
 
PaulWog said:
All this makes me feel so uneasy about buying an iPad. I haven't bought one yet, but I plan to. I probably still will.

Apple makes great products... it's just their business ethics are rather questionable when it comes to competition. They're great with their customers, but poison to the tech industry: That said, they do promote a fair bit of competition at the same time, so there is some counterbalance.
Click to expand...

I also like Apple products, but Apple is a real bitch. Today, it is popular. Some day people won't put up with their s***t and that'll be the end. I don't know how long it is going to last. They'll continue to have good products. it is just that Apple will be more Apple and they'll go back to where they were before the iPod. Just as people left Myspace, Aol, Sony's Walkman...etc.
 
Abyssgh0st said:
If the 'doctored' image is actually a prototype of the device which Samsung used to help create the final product (obviously), then nothing changes. Highly doubt Apple would 'shop a photo, and even though Samsung could not respond you can sure as hell bet they'd speak up if the evidence was fake.
Click to expand...

The image in the filing is a press photo of the device. The other dozen photos of the devices (including side-by-side!) have the screens off; it takes a little more skill to get a good interface photograph.

I see three possible sources for the error in this one image (which is specifically included to illustrate the screen interface, not the physical dimensions of the devices):

1. This is an early Samsung press release photo, and the error was in the photo when Apple got it.

2. There was no aspect error in the Samsung photo; Apple intentionally introduced aspect error so the Samsung is more like the iPad's shape.

3. The two images came from different sources, and had to be shrunk to fit on the paper, and adjusted to be the same height. Likely this was done in two steps: the first the Samsung device was "taller" than the iPad; they then shrank the height of the Samsung down to make the filing layout better, but neglected to keep the aspect ratio locked.

My money's on (3). (2) seems silly and for no gain (like I said, the actual aspect ratio differences are blatantly evident in the other images of the filing, and in this case the aspect ratios still weren't made the same. Also, if you look at the Samsung image it has obvious aspect ratio issues inside the interface as well; if (2) was the case, it was a sloppy photoshopper indeed who did this work!
 
vrDrew said:
Did any of you Android fools stop and ask yourself where Apple got the photo of the Galaxy from?

Answer: From Samsung itself, as part of their discovery process. It showed an image of the proposed Samsung Tablet that was being shown to resellers (like the German company that is selling the Galaxy.) If nothing else, this shows Samsung was guilty of intent in terms of their copying of the iPad. They certainly sold the Galaxy in Germany as a product that looked a heck of a lot like the iPad.

If anyone is guilty of fraud, its the people at Samsung.

Lastly, lets keep this all in perspective: Samsung undoubtedly "copied" the iPad. Its not as if Samsung Tablets were selling out all over the world, and Apple came along with their version. Whether Samsung's "copying" rises to the level of violating German trade law or not is a question that is best answered by German courts.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is Apple couldn't have gotten the images from Samsung and then altered the image? No one at Apple has access to photoshop?

Wow. Short sighted much?
 
MadusMaximus said:
It isn't a patent. It has nothing to do with patents, and you can't even patent this stuff. It's Trade Dress. It's about trademarks and design and so on. It isn't just their products themselves that look similar, it was (before they changed it due to this case) the fact that their custom theme for Android made it look more iOS like, it's the packaging being almost identical in style and design. It's the adverts they used. It's a combination of many things and Samsung are apparently guilty (at least guilty enough for two legal jurisdictions to give a preliminary ruling in Apples favour) of infringing one several of these aspects.
Click to expand...

What custom theme? Honeycomb on Galaxy Tab was not customized by Samsung.
 
Matariel said:
Products that "were prototypes months before the final product" are irrelevant to the case.
Click to expand...

Actually they aren't. We'd have to look at the dates of the announcement, the filing and the release. If Apple filed this based on an announced product that had the similar appearance and ratio as the ipad then the prototype is valid. That it was changed (perhaps due to the charges of copying) before release would be a point in Samsung's favor for dropping the injunction and the case since they aren't trying to sell a possibly violating product. Assuming that the aspect ratio is the only point in the case. It's possible that it wasn't and the injunction was granted based on those other points and this issue isn't an issue at all.

And keep in mind that this is an injunction against sales until a final decision is made. Not a 100% ban. If it turns out that Samsung is deemed not in the wrong they can sue Apple for damages and likely win
 
organerito said:
I also like Apple products, but Apple is a real bitch. Today, it is popular. Some day people won't put up with their s***t and that'll be the end. I don't know how long it is going to last. They'll continue to have good products. it is just that Apple will be more Apple and they'll go back to where they were before the iPod. Just as people left Myspace, Aol, Sony's Walkman...etc.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Well, when that day comes (not for a long time) we'll remember where we heard it first. ;)
 
zacman said:
There are also reports that Apple might have filed to the wrong court. LG Duesseldorf seems to have no jurisdiction regarding the Korean Samsung. The court in Alicante might be the correct one.

German only:

http://www.internet-law.de/2011/08/apple-vs-samsung.html
http://blog.delegibus.com/2011/08/13/apple-gegen-samsung-ein-teurer-anwaltlicher-kunstfehler/
Click to expand...

The update to the Internet law article and a few of the comments seems to indicate little will come of the jurisdiction question. I really have no clue.
 
PaulWog said:
All this makes me feel so uneasy about buying an iPad. I haven't bought one yet, but I plan to. I probably still will.

Apple makes great products... it's just their business ethics are rather questionable when it comes to competition. They're great with their customers, but poison to the tech industry: That said, they do promote a fair bit of competition at the same time, so there is some counterbalance.
Click to expand...

A bit dramatic don't you think? Do you have any idea how many companies pull sleazy things? Hint: All of them.

That being said I think there is more to this than anyone is realizing. Why was it a dutch site that found the flaw? If there was a serious issue with it I'm pretty sure Samsung would have been the one up in arms about it. The prototype theory sounds more valid by the minute.
 
AZREOSpecialist said:
So many opinions from people who are neither a) patent attorneys; b) familiar with the patenting and filing processes; c) educated about the actual filing in question; nor d) insiders at Apple who know what's going on.
Click to expand...

nor e) understand that this is a trade dress issue, not a patent issue.

That is actually quite important, because trade dress issues are - much more than obscure patent and copyright laws - directly tied to "would the average potential consumer be confused or incorrectly guided by the similarities in trade dress." It doesn't take a law degree to see that the layout, marketing, and interfaces have significant similarities. To know the specific ramifications of those similarities? Yes, you need to know what you are talking about. But trade dress laws are specifically centered around what an average joe with average joe eyes sees when the items are placed side by side.
 
charlituna said:
Actually they aren't. We'd have to look at the dates of the announcement, the filing and the release. If Apple filed this based on an announced product that had the similar appearance and ratio as the ipad then the prototype is valid. That it was changed (perhaps due to the charges of copying) before release would be a point in Samsung's favor for dropping the injunction and the case since they aren't trying to sell a possibly violating product.
Click to expand...

Galaxy Tabs always had the same aspect ratio
 
wovel said:
Dd you look? There are at least 5 photos (at least) clearly showing the difference in aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

Just because 90% of your evidence is valid does not make it right or excusable to doctor the other 10%
 
apolloa said:
Well, if Apple turns it's computers into bigger iToys using iOS then that 'day' will be a lot sooner then you think...
Click to expand...

Looks like "iToys" (whatever that means) are what consumers actually want. Unless you're living in an alternate dimension.

Otherwise Apple's numbers aren't actually real, and you and I aren't actually here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back