Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the blame-the-metric-system dept.

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."

25 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Incorrect? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    1. Re:Incorrect? by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Double-plus good!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    2. Re:Incorrect? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it is negligible, why go through the trouble to change it?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Incorrect? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is either an altered/retouched image of a Galaxy Tab or it isn't. There is no reason to alter the image to look more like an iPad if it already looks too much like an iPad.



      Disclaimer: Mac & iPhone owner.

    4. Re:Incorrect? by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its not about a less that 7% change or an "almost 10% change" Its about an attempt to fool the court into believing that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the Ipad using doctored evidence. Such as manipulating the aspect ratio in order to make the dimesions of the products more similar, Its about removing the Samsung logo from the evidence submitted to the court. Its about changing the color, also taking a picture with the Android app window open and depicting that as the home screen which is not true. etc. All of these things display a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and play the judge for a fool. I'm not sure if you would be amused if you were a Judge in a situation like this.

  2. Re:Yeah... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. flawed ? by martiniturbide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...nice and polite topic.. "Flawed"? It is "FAKE", "FALSE" evidence.

  4. Are we to believe... by arcite · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That there were no physical tablets to compare in person? Was the judgement made solely based on 'pictures?...

    1. Re:Are we to believe... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably. If you read TFA, it was an 'ex parte" decision. Samsung wasn't even allowed to respond to or see the complaint before the ruling was issued, and Apple's complaint was the basis for the decision. It is also temporary, and this sort of thing bodes very (very very) badly for Apple. Hopefully they get slapped silly for this. Accident or not, it clearly indicates a contempt of the legal system.

      Then again, it should have been obvious Apple had no true respect for the legal system when they sued Samsung for making a thin rounded-edge rectangle.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Are we to believe... by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Informative

      Le sigh... points for reading, really. :)

      1. It's a temporary injunction, not a permanent one.
      2. It's a preliminary injunction that was issued to stop sales pending an actual hearing.
      3. (and most importantly) Samsung's lawyers weren't allowed to look at the submission from Apple prior to the injunction being issued, because the actual hearing hasn't actually started. They also weren't allowed to argue against the injunction... as others have pointed out, that's what an "ex parte" judgement means.

      Now that Samsung's lawyers can look at and dissect Apple's case in preparation for the actual hearing, I expect that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things Apple has done wrong on this one.

  5. Someday Somewhere In Some Court by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. No Way To Spin These Lies Away by AddisonW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No Way To Spin These Lies Away by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, the bottom of the injunction against Samsung read "The Court So Rules. Sent From My iPad", so the judge may be a bit more lenient...

  7. Look and Feel redux by steveha · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  8. Re:Yeah... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    ... and so on and so on. In fact, IIRC, its predecessors have always been marketed in a default horizontal position, and that's how I've always seen it display at Costco and at tmobile (my cell phone provider).

    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.

  9. Link to the Actual Court Filing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Link to the Actual Court Filing by arose · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      It just so happens that page 28 has the only full frontal that isn't at an angle. It seems whoever put this together was very careful to avoid comparisons that showed any differences. The closest we get to a picture showing how different the aspect ratio makes them appear is on page 39, even there, the angle makes it less obvious. The picture on page 28 isn't just scaled vertically, the aspect ratio of the screen is 1.5 in this doctored picture, the actual aspect ratio is 1.6. In a proper comparison the width difference is clearly evident.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Link to the Actual Court Filing by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you talking about? I just scrolled through the scribd link you presented and it's plain-as-day that the majority of pictures are doctored. Page36:the ipad is photographed at an angle to make it match the Galaxy's aspect ratio. Ditto on page 39.

  10. Re:Yeah... by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  11. Sizes are clearly stated by etresoft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. Not so much by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Come on.. by Wovel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Come on.. by arose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not one of those other photographs is a proper face-to-face comparison showing the rather stark difference in size. Looking at significant angles masks this, the closest is on page 39, but it still is less than obvious. Of course none of this excuses the doctoring of any one of the pictures.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Come on.. by Kynde · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      At least you could have mentioned the other 20 photographs in the complaint all to be from an angle. None of which depicts the aspect ratios as clearly as the picture in page 28 does or would have. Oh well. Apple fanboys accept one in 20 pictures to be fake when evidence is presented.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  14. No such thing as evidence in a German injunction by nicovl · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?