4 ms·

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 differen

by 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.

by GHFigs 15y ago

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.