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 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.
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.
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)
thanks for the info kdawson. didnt know what a virus was until now. your the best.
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?
+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.
No apple is just terrified of the same thing happening to them in their new markets as what happened with PCs vs Macs. I'd be afraid of superior cheaper products as well if I was them. Rather than innovate and try to stay ahead of the competition they'd rather throw lawyers at the problem.
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.
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.
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
When we are talking about design patents, yes, Scale does matter.
In addition, if it can be shown that the design has certain utility, the patent of the design is invalid. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear).
Apple just didn't feel that the evidence that it was submitting against Samsung was pretty enough; it really required photoshopping to be acceptable.
If you can't figure out how to scale a photo without Photoshop, you truly are ignorant.
Especially when you also choose a non-default background image and icon arrangement
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.