More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung
jfruhlinger writes "It seems that Apple can't stop Photoshopping evidence in its EU lawsuit against Samsung. We already saw that the company used trickery in its side-by-side comparison of the iPad and Galaxy Tab; now it appears that it's fudging the comparison between the iPhone and Galaxy S as well."
But you're not trying to prove that the sequoia copied the fiat. This is the equivalent of fiat making their small, cheap car look as spacious as the largest toyota in an add. Except, there it'd be false advertising, here, its falsifying evidence.
If you're claiming that two items are nearly identical and then to do so you show a picture of them the same size when they are significantly different sizes. then yes it is a problem.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Confirmation bias .
Being a judge doesn't magically make a person immune to subconscious bias.
Is Apple becoming Microsoft?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Finally an objective test to see if you're an Apple fanboi. If you think there is nothing wrong with skewing the aspect ration in a court filing, you're a fanboi, period.
Apple just didn't feel that the evidence that it was submitting against Samsung was pretty enough; it really required photoshopping to be acceptable.
The Samsung F700 was introduced so close to the same time as the iPhone that neither could actually be a copy, you just can't rush out a finished phone in a month, no matter how good you are.
The simple fact is that everything is a derivative of what came before. Both companies were exposed to the same precursors, had the same goal and the same markets. They had the same components available for use in their product. They existed in the same societies with the same sense of aesthetics. It's hardly a surprise that they came up with very similar designs.
The same argument applies to the pads. The pad design has been envisioned a bazillion times, including the thing that Captain Kirk would periodically sign on the bridge of the enterprise. We then saw an update to the vision on TNG (it was even called a PADD) The only thing preventing them was the basic technology behind them. We needed cheap enough and large enough touchscreens, powerful and thin batteries, and components that were efficient enough to allow decent battery life and not overheat in spite of having no room for airflow. It's no surprise that when those base elements became practical one by one, that the aesthetic of the time, the desires of the market, and the constraints of technology would come together to produce similar devices.
Interestingly, if we are to believe ANY of Apple's marketing claims, we must conclude that the devices are worlds apart. Apple claims that their product is the one and only everywhere but in court where they claim that there is another product just like theirs.