Slashdot Mirror
Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case
An anonymous reader writes "The Dutch site webwereld.nl has found incorrect evidence submitted by Apple (Google translation of Dutch original) in the EU design-right case against Samsung. In the ex-parte case, a German judge recently issued a temporary injunction against the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the whole EU except the Netherlands. The faulty evidence is a side-by-side picture of an iPad 2 and the Galaxy Tab. The Tab is scaled to fit the iPad2, and the aspect ratio is changed from 1.46 to 1.36, which more closely matches the iPad 2 aspect ratio of 1.3, according to webwereld.nl."
An injunction against Samsung's inferior copy was issued, protecting our sacred exclusive right to produce rectangular objects with touchscreens. Any evidence that contributed to this correct outcome was itself necessarily correct.
-S. Jobs
My psychic powers are tingling. I'm sensing a "It was just an honest mistake, a simple oversight from our graphics department. Nothing to see here. These aren't the Droids you're looking for." statement coming from Apple. If I'm right, James Randi owes me money.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Apple is claiming to have originated the concept of a rectangular screen with a dark bezel of equal width on all sides and rounded corners on the bezel? That's the standard format of most generic LCD monitors and book-like "e-readers". If you're going to make a touch-screen device, that's the obvious form factor.
They also made the surround on the Tab darker to make it look more like the iPad. Submitting photoshoped images to the court should cost them their case.
...nice and polite topic.. "Flawed"? It is "FAKE", "FALSE" evidence.
That there were no physical tablets to compare in person? Was the judgement made solely based on 'pictures?...
Its just like the benchmarks that showed how much faster PPC was compared to Intel. Until Apple switched to Intel of course. Or how they proved that the G4 Cube was the worlds most powerful super computer. Apples benchmarks and measuring systems are just that much "better" then the rest of the worlds. For example, the universal measurement for a tablet size is IPUs or IPad Units and the smallest IPS is 1. So all tablets SMALLER then one IPU are in fact the same size as an IPad.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It could and should cost them much more: damages for lost profits and the presumption in any future proceedings that the evidence they give is accurate.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Prosecution: The man before you murdered ten people in cold blood, and we have a witness to prove it!
Defense: Your honor, witness claims the man he was was 5 ft 11, weights 130lbs, had a handlebar moustache and had blond hair. My client is 6 ft 3, weighs 330 lbs, is clean shaven and has brown hair. The police photos were intentionally doctored to make my client look like that man.
Prosecution: Your honor, we've merely altered the image to make it clearer that the accused is obviously the same man! Any sensible person would see the two are the same man!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let's just sum up how badly Apple lied to the court:
* Altered the aspect ratio
* Changed the colour of the device
* Rotated the device 90 degrees from its standard
* Fabricated screen contents to look like an iPad instead of the standard Android OS
Judges have little tolerance for crap like this.
This reminds me of the "Look and Feel" lawsuit against Windows, way back a couple of decades ago. Apple sued Microsoft and HP, claiming the "look and feel" of Windows was too close to the Mac. As part of the evidence, there was a screen shot of a Mac desktop, and a screen shot of Windows with some HP shell software (called "New Wave") running. But to "improve" the screen shot, Apple had used the user-customization features of New Wave to customize the desktop, and every customization made it look more like an exact copy of the Mac.
IIRC the default settings were colorful, but Apple customized all the colors to black on white to more exactly match the Mac. They moved around icons. I think they even renamed "Recycle.Bin" to "Trash". (But it's been quite a few years so maybe my memory is making that up.)
Sorry, no links to support my memory; Google didn't find me any screenshots from this pre-Internet lawsuit.
This sort of trick doesn't win you any friends in the court, and it always gets revealed, so it's kind of stupid that Apple tried it.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
No no, they didn't change the aspect ratio of the photo. You see, the Geniuses (TM) at Apple have designed the iPad to be viewed exactly at 21.3 degrees for the most ergonomic User Experience (TM). At that angle, it has the intended aspect ratio of 1.36.
They also made the surround on the Tab darker to make it look more like the iPad. Submitting photoshoped images to the court should cost them their case.
Not to mention that the "evidence" shows the Galaxy Tab in a vertical position when the default/intended usage is in a horizontal position.
Exhibit A: Samsungs Galaxy Tab 1.0 microsite: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/index.html
Exhibit B: Endgadget Galaxy Tab 1.0 review : http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-review/
Exhibit C: CNet's review : http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10/4505-3126_7-34505347.html
Call me conspiracy theorist, but this cannot be by accident. Morphed dimensions by itself an accident? Maybe (and that's pushing it). Shown in a vertical position as opposed to the horizontal position it is shown everywhere else as an accident? Maybe. But both, as legal evidence? Got to have been done on purpose.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for-EU-Wide-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1
Despite what the commentards are saying here, there are plenty of pictures in that filing showing the different aspect ratios. The picture called out here (page 28) has scaled the two tablets to be the same height, though this results in the Galaxy Tab 10.0 being narrower in both the screen and total device width -- it's just not obvious unless you line them up vertically.
And for the commentards claiming that there should be a logo, that the Galaxy Tab doesn't do portrait, etc. I direct you here:
http://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1-front-and-back-view-portrait.jpg
You're right, falsifying evidence is no big deal as long as it's not the only piece of evidence.
There is no default. Its designed to work both ways. Portrait or landscape is irrelevant, both devices care not about their orientation. WTF kind of argument is that?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Just below the picture in question, the sizes of the two devices are clearly stated. I didn't even need Google Translate to see that.
If you actually go to the complaint, you see that there are several photos of the actual Tab, showing the different aspect ratio. There's also a listing of the actual dimensions of both, side by side.
Hey, stupid. Android Market in Honeycomb will only work in landscape mode. As the market is probably the most important differentiating factor for a "blessed" Android device, I'd say that points to the intended use orientation being landscape.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Maybe even made in the exact same place, since both companies outsource manufacturing to foxconn.
At least Slashdot could have mentioned the other 20 photographs in the complaint. All of which clearly depict the appropriate aspect ratio. Oh well. Independent thought really is dead.
I am just curious here. There are clearly still two sides here -- "for Apple" and "against Apple." I am unashamedly in the latter camp even if I do currently own some Apple computers -- I dislike what they are doing, not necessarily the computers. But more and more of this stuff keeps emerging which shows Apple for being a pretty disgusting company. Have any Apple fans here reconsidered their position after any or all of this? (Or are you still "thinking different"?)
The title of this slashdot post, the refered article and many of the comments seem to be a little miss-informed.
Everyone is refering to evidence whereas no evidence is required or submitted when applying for an injunction (Einstweilige Verfügung) in Germany. To get a German injunction, the submitter simply has to make their claim believable to the judge. There is no need for any evidence... simply statements, references and photos that make the request for the injunction believable. To make matters worse, these injunctions are dealt with by Civil Courts meaning the judges have no idea about technology or design. The submitted believability statements (as they are called in German) are not tested for validity they are not properly scrutinized and they need no real foundation they simply have to be made believable.
The problem here is the German justice system more than anything else. Any justice system that can make such far reaching decisions based on belief is without a doubt not worth taking seriously.
Wouldn't it be nice to see companies actually competing instead of playing silly mafia games with lawyers and judges. A flawed system run by incompetent people simply trying to make some cash based on nonsens instead of doing something productive... Who needs them?