Slashdot Mirror
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."
It is a flat screen with icons. No, you didn't think it up first. Now sit back down.
They were two separate pictures (the other site photoshopped them together and indicates they did so).
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
Come on, stop reaching here.
The pictures were to show the devices are substantially similar, not to show scale.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
They also rearranged the Galaxy S's home screen so that it'd look more like the iPhone. Apple, I mean, not Samsung.
Go ahead, take a look at the real thing. That looks nothing like an iPhone.
For one thing, it supports widgets, which the iPhone doesn't. (Apparently the idea that people might want to get weather information on their phone still evades Apple.)
Another good hint is the home button on the screen Apple's using, which probably doesn't appear on the home screen.
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.
It's not just about scale - that, as you say, is forgiveable - it's about aspect ratio. They made the Samsungs look more like the Apples by squashing their dimensions differently, changing their shape in the process. That isn't exactly cool, as I'm sure you would agree.
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.
the flaw in your argument here is that apple's images had icons that were the correct aspect ratio but the shape was wrong. if the image was just squashed, the icons would be squashed as well.
when one is accusing the other of copycatting then yes it should be realistically represented, the scaled image does make samsung look nearly identical in shape and size, which IS a major selling point on the iphone. In the real world there is a noticeable difference.
reaching would be apple thinking they invented glossy round web2.0 icons, and how dare anyone arrange them on a grid!
When the judge made his decision, he had a powered-up iPad and a powered-up Galaxy tab in front of him, so he could see for himself whether they were similar - at least according to the BBC. If he thinks Samsung is in the wrong after playing with a physical working device, what does it matter if one image shows the aspect ratio incorrectly ? (all of the other images in the brief clearly showed the different aspect ratios).
Oh, it makes good link-bait ? You don't say!
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
So they are saying they've "innovated" the mobile device sector for inventing handhelds with rounded corners and big screens. Well, how does that hold up to their first iPhone looking strikingly similar to Nokia's MID (at that time already being their third generation handheld none the less!)?
Apple is not that innovative, they just have better marketing - which they now can leverage for sueing their competition (I'm sure every judge has heard of the iPhone, I doubt the same is true for Nokia's Maemo devices)
apparently Apple or Samsung has patented the form factor. Why else would this be worth reading or commenting upon?
In add... lying (photoshopped image) is OK. In a lawsuit.... I do not think so. Apple should get their asses whacked.
This article is about the resized (keeping aspect ratio correct) Galaxy S versus iPhone.
And yes, the icons in the Galaxy Tab pic were squashed. Look at the clock icon in the Galaxy Tab picture. It's supposed to be circular, it is not.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
thanks for the info kdawson. didnt know what a virus was until now. your the best.
Give Apple some credit, I'd say that if their lawyers doctored evidence then they would have at least put some effort into making it look genuine. The Galaxy S II has a display ratio of 3:5, while the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 have a ratio of 2:3. Apple's evidence certainly doesn't seem to back up the real data.
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
Samsung went to some lengths to make the grid view look more like iOS. But really, it's a grid of rounded icons. Big. Freaking. Deal.
HEY APPLE, some users might appreciate it if you started ripping off some Android design elements. Like widgets. But hey glad to see you've at least gotten around to copying the notification area, complete with the whole swipe gesture and all.
These so-called Community Designs (I'm an ugly American, what do I know) need another stringent test in order to be considered a reasonable restriction on the market: Did the tools and technology to implement a design already exist, such that anyone could have readily "invented" the same design, or did the design require the initial invention of tools and technology necessary to implement the design itself, in a fashion similar to the work of Charles Babbage?
Apple's designs don't pass that test, do they?
Is Apple becoming Microsoft?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
If the pics were shown to make a point of the interior space, then it would be misleading. If it were to show similarity of design, it wouldn't be misleading.
In this case, the pics were to show similarity of design, not size.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
+4 Misinformative?
From TFA for those that can't be bothered to read:
But the picture of purported Galaxy S has been resized about 6%, making the Galaxy S appear smaller and more similar to Apple's phone. The height of the purported Galaxy S that Apple displays matches the iPhone exactly. The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered.
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.
Thankfully, because of Steve Jobs, the worms are 3mm thinner than typical worms.
Cheaters never win...unless of course their multi-billion-dollar multi-national corporations. In this case, carry on...
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
It's interesting you bring up cars, because there's plenty of cases in the trade where size matters. For example, the check-chart (I forget if it has a funny spelling) book that has all the engine silhouettes has them all to scale. And more to the point, frame drawings are shown with a 1:1 aspect ratio, because nothing else makes sense...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even in that pics they have all the tablets after the iPad in portrait position which is misleading. I mean look at most cellphones. for the most part they all look very similar. Having rounded edges and the screen taking up most of the face of the device shouldn't be able to pass as IP some things are going to be a natural advance with withever gadget you might be talking about.
Facebook?
That picture is selective. Not all tablets looked like that pre-ipad. For example, take a look at my old visionplate: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/tibman/VisionPlate/DSCN0921.jpg
Looks almost exactly like an Ipad.. except it predates the ipad by many years.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
The lawsuits aren't stupid, they're a (imo) desperate attempt to keep history from repeating itself.
In the 1980's, Apple seemed to have it all, only to have their flagship gadget elbowed into a niche as soon as the windows PC was capable of doing pretty much the same things, but at a more affordable price, and offering a more open platform both for software development and hardware vendors. At the time, Apple sued Microsoft for stealing their 'look and feel', but lost. It turns out, you can't patent or copyright a 'look and feel'. (Unless the competition starts using an apple for a logo, or simply copying the hardware and software. This is common enough, in China you can buy devices that are basically iPhones, presumably made in the same factory, except for the Apple logo. You get those separately in the form of stickers you can apply yourself if you want).
Even though Apple's claim is obviously true: Samsung obviously made these gadgets deliberately similar to the corresponding Apple product in order to compete in the same high margin market segment, I doubt a new series of 'look and feel' lawsuits is going to be more successful.
Right now, the prices are similar, but soon enough the Android devices will start to become cheaper. I will not be surprised if 15 or 20 years from now, Apple will be a fancy niche player, falling further and further behind their Asian competitors and their Google OS. Larry Page taking the place of Bill Gates as the most hated evil business man on the internet.
I tried to tell her it's not about scale but aspect ratio but she said it just doesn't feel the same :(
Wow. I enjoyed your link.
I never accepted tablets that imitating Star Trek technology had to look so awfully different. Just look at all the handles and purposeless bumps on the frame, plus all the wasted space and buttons.
But then I look at the Windows logo on the top tablets. It's evidence that those were kludges meant to run a full-featured Windows OS, assigning a stylus to do nearly all input (and the more alien handles and margin buttons as another kludge to fix the limitations of the stylus-only push). The hidden, rotating keyboards also made them bulky, heavy and probably justified the $2000 pricetags that came with them prior to the advent of modern iPhone/Google-based smartphones with touchscreens
They did that for the Tab (in just one image out of hundreds of pages?). They didn't do it for the Galaxy S, which is what this story is about and which is what the person you're responding to was talking about.
I think you have some gaping security holes there...
Look at 5 different 4 door economy sedans from a distance. How about 5 different luxery sedans? 5 Different pickups?
:)
That covers the car analogy angle as well.
If it looks similar in ornamentation and provides the same functionality, it is in conflict.
It'd be difficult to argue the devices don't provide the same functionality based upon a 10% size difference.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Apple just didn't feel that the evidence that it was submitting against Samsung was pretty enough; it really required photoshopping to be acceptable.
They did it for their iPad Star-Trek ads: http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg
They probably figure if it's subtle enough, they can get away with it, but most people won't notice.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
If you can't figure out how to scale a photo without Photoshop, you truly are ignorant.
It's one thing to scale the images maintaining aspect ratio. However, if you stretch the image to try to argue that (for example), the Ford Taurus and the new VW are clones, you have crossed the line into fraud.
Did you even look at the picture in TFA? Note how much the middle phone (the shopped Samsung image) looks like the iPhone and how much it does NOT look look like an un-shopped image of the Samsung to the right.
Especially when you also choose a non-default background image and icon arrangement
I don't know what a virus is
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Damn IT... I Intended to have a SARCASM TAG, but /. kinda fucked uped on me and removed it...
The point is, yeah, Mr kdawson, I know how to operate a computer, been doing that since 1979, please thank you, come again
(Go soft on me, I was only 8 at the time)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I'd look at the SmartQ series of tablets too. They look a lot like the iPad, but have been around for a lot longer (and are a lot cheaper, although the specs are pretty anaemic).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
My best,
-kdawson
Here is what Apple copied. What I don't understand is why is it that Apple followers wont admit it in the face of actual evidence. Seems irrational.
Er. NIce try. But if you care to know the truth you can see that the idea that Apple invented that look is false.
Unfortunately you still have that virus. It posts Spam for fake AV on Slashdot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Here's a ' you can copy and paste since your keyboard seems defective.
Gebus, never heard of wikipedia, it's got everything, A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms. Most viruses are too small to be seen directly with a light microscope. Viruses infect all types of organisms, from animals and plants to bacteria and archaea.[1] Since Dmitri Ivanovsky's 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants bla bla bla... Apparently these invisible "agents" ha ha "invisible", can infect your computer, much like fungus and mold in my coffee cup.
Apple is extremely popular and extremely successful by most standards. I doubt anyone here can deny that, so I will end this paragraph here and move on to the next paragraph.
Apple is great at creating an image that is appealing and meaningful. (I omit truthful and factual from my statement intentionally) Apple is just doing what Apple does best. The problem here is that they are presenting their appealing and meaningful images to courts of law where inaccuracies for the purpose of convincing people are also known as lies, perjury, deceit, or misdirection. The standards for advertising and marketing are most definitely lower than those of evidence used in court... or at least it should be.
This case should be dismissed with prejudice. Apple is fabricating and/or tampering with evidence in order to get a judgment in their favor, how can any of their evidence be trusted now? Not only should the case be dismissed, but Apple should be forced to pay for Samsungs legal fees and time as well a the court costs, and if there's any precedence, they should have to pay a hefty fine. And by hefty, I'm talking in the millions of dollars. Something that will hurt. If any of this evidence was produced by someone who was under oath, they should be up on charges, and not just Contempt of Court. There is absolutely no excuse that would justify something like this.
Of course, this is America. Nothing, other than the evidence maybe being thrown out. Hell no. Nothing will happen to the Cooperate Overlords.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Apple needs to be careful proffering false evidence, fraudulently, to an EU court.
The EU can and will impose hefty x BIL ISD fines for a corp. doing this.
You are SO getting a Karma virus.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
On July 12, 2011, The head of the patent portfolio at apple, Richard Lutton left, without so much as an explanation. Maybe he was behind the photoshoping and was forced to resign, maybe he did not agree with the photoshoping, and quit before he would get tarnished....
From:
http://money.canoe.ca/money/business/international/archives/2011/07/20110712-084412.html
Apple is engaged in an expanding web of litigation concerning smartphone patents, mostly with phonemakers using Google's rival Android software, and it was unclear why Richard "Chip" Lutton Junior, who manages the iPhone maker's patent portfolio, is leaving the company.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Did you even read the caption in TFA?
"The complaint is only available for viewing at the court in The Hague. Due to these restrictions, Webwereld has made a rendering of Apple's flawed evidence to present the findings visually."
This isn't Apple's image, any measurement of tiny differences or similarities is moot, because some artist made the image you're basing it on. The article also says the aspect ratio was not altered.
You saw Apple's image?
The one in the article is not Apple's image.
"The complaint is only available for viewing at the court in The Hague. Due to these restrictions, Webwereld has made a rendering of Apple's flawed evidence to present the findings visually."
If you're going to complain about icon sizes, you need to blame some Webwereld artist.
All of these "look and feel" lawsuits should be outlawed. I heard a story about such a lawsuit over the control\s of a car. It was in the very early days of the car industry and there were many different ways of controlling a car. Some cars used a tiller stick similar to many small sailboats. Others used a combination of sticks which can still be seen in some bulldozers. And then there was the steering wheel. The public liked that and other car companies duplicates the "look and feel" of the steering wheel but implemented it in different ways. The original company tried to sue in court but was unsuccessful.
Can you imagine the chaos if every brand of cars had to be controlled in a completely different way? Computer and other device should take this lesson to heart. Order is what makes a market thrive. Computer on whether your device is intrinsically better. Spend those dollars (or euros) on making your product better.
The second from last sentence should be...
"Compete on whether your device is intrinsically better. "
The spell checker came up and I accidentally clicked of the wrong choice.
Mea culpa! ("My fault" for those who do not know Latin.)
Give me a break. Tablets that resemble an iPad existed in SciFi movies and real life way before iPad even existed. This is a clear case of Apple pulling legal bullshit to make the market uncompetitive to them and frankly, this sort of thing was never meant to happen when people drafted patent and other laws. Fanboy's just don't like to admit that Apple is a big greedy corporation without good ethics, regardless if they make good products. If the iPad is so superior, then people would buy it instead of the other tablets anyway.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The problem is the judge did not even hear Samsung's case at all when they issued their ruling. The EU is a big joke.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
For those that want to, the instructions are readily available (Search for "create lion installation disk") from reputable sites.
Yes - I know all about that and it Worked For Me. So, the question is, why didn't Apple stick a nice friendly "Create Lion Installation Disk" button in the installer? That would make it useful for people who are quite capable of inserting a blank DVD but not technical enough to dig inside an app bundle and find an obscurely-named .dmg file. Instead, you have to remember to stop the installer auto-running because it deletes itself after a successful install. Then you're back on Google trying to find out how to get the App Store to let you re-download it.
Anyway, that's my home machines sorted out - now, there's the 3 people at work for whom I will, at some time in the future, need to purchase Lion for - legitimately. Currently the options seem to be: (a) Bulk licensing: $29 per seat - sounds fine but minimum order 20 seats - and you still get to download and make your own disc, or (b) buy 5 USB sticks at $69 a pop or (c) buy everybody a $30 iTunes voucher and get them to buy it on their personal App Store accounts (which is fine until someone leaves, or gets upgraded, and you want to pass their Mac on to someone else). None of them are totally unworkable, but it doesn't make life easy - Apple clearly have forgotten their roots in the garage and subscribed to the "Small business = less than 100 employees" nonsense (plus, lots of people in large businesses will have relatively small, often self-supporting, groups of Mac users).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Looks completely different to even the white iPad, too me.
I think Palm had "black slab touchscreen tablets" covered in the mid 90's.
Do you really want to play that game?
Palm Pilot (~1996)
Able Neutron Massage Pod (~1993)
...and, of course, the real motherlode, like half of modern personal computing, dates back to PARC in the 70s and the Dynabook which probably did influence Apple - but would not otherwise have seen the light of day, and Apple paid for access to the PARC work (hope Xerox held on to those shares).
...but you'd need some real photoshopping to make any of them look like an iPad.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Thankfully, because of Steve Jobs, the worms are 3mm thinner than typical worms.
I patented that last week. :>
One is small, one is far away.
http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/iPhone_vs_Galaxy-600.jpg
That's OK - Samsung's new lawyer 2.0 release has lawyers that are 0.2mm thinner yet..
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If that looks nothing like an iPad then neither does the Galaxy S.
I much prefer the people with viruses just give me their computers. Dumpster diving is annoying, and it is so much easier when they just give the stuff away.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?