4 ms·

I'd love to see the image in context. How is Apple using the image? If this is so egregious, then show it all. If Apple's point is "Samsung copies our design s

I'd love to see the image in context. How is Apple using the image? If this is so egregious, then show it all. If Apple's point is "Samsung copies our design slavishly" and the defense is "wait, ours may look identical, but it's 6% larger", then good luck with that. All I see so far is Samsung building devices that are identical to Apple modulo the screens they're able to source. This may be exactly Apple's point.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
First, they're messing up the aspect ratio of the devices with the manipulation. Second, there is no real need to do this, if the sizes are just 6% different, why change the image at all?. Third, this is showing up to be a pattern, thus not just 'sloppy lawyering' like Gruber would want us to believe. >All I see so far is Samsung building devices that are identical to Apple modulo the screens they're able to source. This may be exactly Apple's point. And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'? All this in a court filing. Lets be honest here, if this was MS in place of Apple, everyone would be screaming bloody murder.
- tzs 15y ago
  > First, they're messing up the aspect ratio of the devices with the manipulation From the article: "The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered". > And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'? Apple noted in the text of the filing that the sizes are actually different.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    The OP was referring to Samsung devices in general and can apply to the earlier tampering as well, the Galaxy tab did get its aspect ratio changed from 16:9 to a 4:3.
- siglesias 15y ago
  The point you need to argue is that the Samsung phone in fact being bigger is relevant to the discussion of whether the design was copied, and I think that's all Apple is trying to show in the picture.
  - sjs 15y ago
    If it's not relevant than Apple had no reason to resize it. By resizing they indicate that the devices are more similar than they actually are. I don't even think a note that says the Samsung device is resized would be acceptable, they should simply make a fair comparison. I have been defending Apple on this till now even after the first doctored photo debacle. No more, no way. They are in the wrong without question.
sjs 15y ago
I was taking the unpopular stance that Apple had a leg to stand on in this case because Samsung products can be mistaken for Apple products at a glance. I still feel they are blatant copies. But now I have to agree with acangiano that this case needs to be thrown out. If it's intentional then it's despicable (and I would say unnecessary) and if it's by accident then it's extremely negligent. Either way Apple has really fucked this up. If they really thought they had a leg to stand on they shouldn't have tried to mislead anyone or should have taken more care to get it right.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

First, they're messing up the aspect ratio of the devices with the manipulation. Second, there is no real need to do this, if the sizes are just 6% different, why change the image at all?. Third, this is showing up to be a pattern, thus not just 'sloppy lawyering' like Gruber would want us to believe. >All I see so far is Samsung building devices that are identical to Apple modulo the screens they're able to source. This may be exactly Apple's point. And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'? All this in a court filing. Lets be honest here, if this was MS in place of Apple, everyone would be screaming bloody murder.

tzs 15y ago
> First, they're messing up the aspect ratio of the devices with the manipulation From the article: "The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered". > And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'? Apple noted in the text of the filing that the sizes are actually different.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  The OP was referring to Samsung devices in general and can apply to the earlier tampering as well, the Galaxy tab did get its aspect ratio changed from 16:9 to a 4:3.
siglesias 15y ago
The point you need to argue is that the Samsung phone in fact being bigger is relevant to the discussion of whether the design was copied, and I think that's all Apple is trying to show in the picture.
- sjs 15y ago
  If it's not relevant than Apple had no reason to resize it. By resizing they indicate that the devices are more similar than they actually are. I don't even think a note that says the Samsung device is resized would be acceptable, they should simply make a fair comparison. I have been defending Apple on this till now even after the first doctored photo debacle. No more, no way. They are in the wrong without question.

sjs 15y ago

I was taking the unpopular stance that Apple had a leg to stand on in this case because Samsung products can be mistaken for Apple products at a glance. I still feel they are blatant copies. But now I have to agree with acangiano that this case needs to be thrown out. If it's intentional then it's despicable (and I would say unnecessary) and if it's by accident then it's extremely negligent. Either way Apple has really fucked this up. If they really thought they had a leg to stand on they shouldn't have tried to mislead anyone or should have taken more care to get it right.