4 ms·

So the images Apple supplied to German courts showed the Samsung hardware altered in the following ways: 1. Aspect ratio changed to be identical to iPad. 2. Sam

So the images Apple supplied to German courts showed the Samsung hardware altered in the following ways: 1. Aspect ratio changed to be identical to iPad. 2. Samsung logo removed. Also, they show the app drawer screen instead of the default home screen. Samsung wasn't allowed to see any of this evidence before the court gave the injunction. Is it even possible that this wasn't deliberate, willful deception on the part of Apple lawyers?

watty 15y ago
Hopefully (for Apple) they used an image that Samsung actually produced somewhere in a pre-release mock up or ad or something but it seems doubtful. I don't know German laws but I'd hope falsifying information is not taken lightly.
GHFigs 15y ago
So the images... In fact, the charge is that one image is so modified. The original document[1] contains many images, in which you can clearly see the difference that is supposedly being covered up. While I can totally see Apple being reprimanded for this, I think it's extremely doubtful that it's going to change the court's opinion overall. [1]:http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811 http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811
- palebluedot 15y ago
  I just scrolled through the document you linked. While there are additional images of the Galaxy in that document, the allegedly altered one is the only one I saw that compared them both powered on, closely side-by-side, and not at an angle. The other images are much more difficult to compare. If you were to pick one image to alter in that document to 'make your case', they picked the most influential one. It is difficult for me to see that as accidental.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    I don't mean to say it was accidental. Only that it's not as though Apple's case hinges on precise proportions or trick photography. The resemblance being claimed[1] isn't fabricated, even if it's been embellished. They got an injunction because they were able to convince the court that a) they have a case, and b) they're likely to win, and I don't think that would be any different if the photos were unassailably accurate. [1]:Even though the photo makes the aspect ratio look similar, they aren't actually claiming that in the text as one of the features of the design that were lifted. They closest they come is citing the exact dimensions (which they list) as "very similar".
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and that was the only picture that compared both tablets side by side. Usually the courts don't take kindly to being lied to, especially leading to a emergency decision prohibiting the sale of devices. Lets see what happens.
ugh 15y ago
One reason why the courts decide so swiftly in Germany (in cases like this) is that the evidence that was presented by Apple was presented under oath. As you can imagine, lying under oath is no joke. The evidence provided can be taken at face value by the courts but if they are asked to do that, lying or misleading is punished harshly.
Anechoic 15y ago
>Samsung logo removed. Did they? A quick browse through Google image search shows lots of Tab 10.1 pictures, many with a Samsung logo and many without (here for example: http://popherald.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-honeycomb-release-date/7256 http://popherald.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-honeycomb-release-da...). Most of the pics without a logo seem to be pre-release marketing photos. I wonder if the Apple submittal grabbed a marketing photo someplace. We shall soon see.
- mendocino 15y ago
  It's also not on the box: http://techcitement.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Box.jpg http://techcitement.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Box... Edit: It also does not appear on their website: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB Unrelated but sort of funny in that context, they seem to photoshop iOS screenshots onto Galaxy devices (scroll down where they show the maps feature) http://www.samsung.com/galaxyplayer50/ http://www.samsung.com/galaxyplayer50/

watty 15y ago

Hopefully (for Apple) they used an image that Samsung actually produced somewhere in a pre-release mock up or ad or something but it seems doubtful. I don't know German laws but I'd hope falsifying information is not taken lightly.

GHFigs 15y ago

So the images... In fact, the charge is that one image is so modified. The original document[1] contains many images, in which you can clearly see the difference that is supposedly being covered up. While I can totally see Apple being reprimanded for this, I think it's extremely doubtful that it's going to change the court's opinion overall. [1]:http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811 http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811

palebluedot 15y ago
I just scrolled through the document you linked. While there are additional images of the Galaxy in that document, the allegedly altered one is the only one I saw that compared them both powered on, closely side-by-side, and not at an angle. The other images are much more difficult to compare. If you were to pick one image to alter in that document to 'make your case', they picked the most influential one. It is difficult for me to see that as accidental.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  I don't mean to say it was accidental. Only that it's not as though Apple's case hinges on precise proportions or trick photography. The resemblance being claimed[1] isn't fabricated, even if it's been embellished. They got an injunction because they were able to convince the court that a) they have a case, and b) they're likely to win, and I don't think that would be any different if the photos were unassailably accurate. [1]:Even though the photo makes the aspect ratio look similar, they aren't actually claiming that in the text as one of the features of the design that were lifted. They closest they come is citing the exact dimensions (which they list) as "very similar".
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and that was the only picture that compared both tablets side by side. Usually the courts don't take kindly to being lied to, especially leading to a emergency decision prohibiting the sale of devices. Lets see what happens.

ugh 15y ago

One reason why the courts decide so swiftly in Germany (in cases like this) is that the evidence that was presented by Apple was presented under oath. As you can imagine, lying under oath is no joke. The evidence provided can be taken at face value by the courts but if they are asked to do that, lying or misleading is punished harshly.

Anechoic 15y ago

>Samsung logo removed. Did they? A quick browse through Google image search shows lots of Tab 10.1 pictures, many with a Samsung logo and many without (here for example: http://popherald.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-honeycomb-release-date/7256 http://popherald.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-honeycomb-release-da...). Most of the pics without a logo seem to be pre-release marketing photos. I wonder if the Apple submittal grabbed a marketing photo someplace. We shall soon see.

mendocino 15y ago
It's also not on the box: http://techcitement.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Box.jpg http://techcitement.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Box... Edit: It also does not appear on their website: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P7510MAYXAB Unrelated but sort of funny in that context, they seem to photoshop iOS screenshots onto Galaxy devices (scroll down where they show the maps feature) http://www.samsung.com/galaxyplayer50/ http://www.samsung.com/galaxyplayer50/