Apple Again Cites Inaccurate Evidence in Samsung Patent Case(pcworld.com)
pcworld.com
Apple Again Cites Inaccurate Evidence in Samsung Patent Case
http://www.pcworld.com/article/238488/apple_again_cites_inaccurate_evidence_in_samsung_patent_case.html
8 comments
I sincerely hope courts take this travesty seriously. Intentionally submitting doctored and misleading evidence should be ground for immediate dismissal of the case.
They're just trying to show the design similarities. Aspect ratio was not altered.
No, it appears as if it was just altered in the ways that would help their case, in this instance. With the tablet filing, the aspect ratio appears to be altered - and perhaps not coincidentally, altering the aspect ratio in that filing was more beneficial.
The end result appears to be, in both the tablet and phone filings, that the alleged image manipulation produced something that appeared more similar to Apple's products. That the image manipulation is different (aspect ratio adjustment, vs resizing) seems to be more damning than if the same adjustment was made across the board (i.e. it looks less likely to be accidental).
The end result appears to be, in both the tablet and phone filings, that the alleged image manipulation produced something that appeared more similar to Apple's products. That the image manipulation is different (aspect ratio adjustment, vs resizing) seems to be more damning than if the same adjustment was made across the board (i.e. it looks less likely to be accidental).
If the designs are so similar - and I am one of the few who really thinks they are - then Apple would have no need to scale the Samsung device in order to highlight the similarities. There's no excusing this. Once was terrible, twice is just incomprehensible. Incredibly unprofessional no matter how this came to be.
The filing has lots of pictures and information, among them the dimensions of the different devices. There needs to be a graphic that illustrates that the proportions and relative button placement is copied; this is that graphic.
I believe even a commercial advertisement making this kind of comparison is required to have a disclaimer immediately above or below it describing any changes made to an image. I would imagine a legal document would have more stringent requirements.
You remember "not actual size", right?
You remember "not actual size", right?
If the charge is that Samsung hardware is so close to Apple's that it would fool a normal reasonable person, isn't doctoring images sort of a tacit admission that it's not? I mean, if you really believed it to be true, why would you bother altering the images?
I'm kind of confused about why this affects the patent lawsuit, though. I understand the German trademark dispute, but is the visual look of the iPhone included in the patent?
I'm kind of confused about why this affects the patent lawsuit, though. I understand the German trademark dispute, but is the visual look of the iPhone included in the patent?
Interesting point from the article:
A legal expert on intellectual property cases, who
declined to be named, asserted that when pictures are
filed both in the complaint and in separate
productions, those in the complaint would be
considered more important. **Visual evidence presented
there typically indicates that the plaintiff wants to
emphasize its significance, he said.**
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Summary: Some of the side-by-side images of Apple iPhone & Samsung Galaxy S show the phones apparing visually similar, but the Samsung image has been scaled down 6%.
It's the newspaper that claims that the evidence in inaccurate. What would be very interesting is if the court involved also found it inaccurate, but I can't find any decision one way or the other on this...
It's the newspaper that claims that the evidence in inaccurate. What would be very interesting is if the court involved also found it inaccurate, but I can't find any decision one way or the other on this...
> It's the newspaper that claims that the evidence in inaccurate.
Article: "During the court hearing last week, Samsung's lawyer, Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons, claimed that Apple has been "manipulating visual evidence, making Samsung's devices appear more similar to Apple's.""
Both Samsung and newspaper are claiming the evidence is inaccurate. The newspaper is the one which highlighted a particular illustration which, uh, does indeed seem inaccurate.
The court has indeed not yet made any decision on this.
Article: "During the court hearing last week, Samsung's lawyer, Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons, claimed that Apple has been "manipulating visual evidence, making Samsung's devices appear more similar to Apple's.""
Both Samsung and newspaper are claiming the evidence is inaccurate. The newspaper is the one which highlighted a particular illustration which, uh, does indeed seem inaccurate.
The court has indeed not yet made any decision on this.
>Summary: Some of the side-by-side images of Apple iPhone & Samsung Galaxy S show the phones apparing visually similar, but the Samsung image has been scaled down 6%.
Would you say the same thing if it was Samsung's court filing and Samsung made the iPhone 6% wider make them look dissimilar?
>It's the newspaper that claims that the evidence in inaccurate.
They're using the dictionary meaning of inaccurate. And it is plainly visible to the eye that the images were doctored, unless you don't want to see it, no real need to wait for a court to decide it for you.
Would you say the same thing if it was Samsung's court filing and Samsung made the iPhone 6% wider make them look dissimilar?
>It's the newspaper that claims that the evidence in inaccurate.
They're using the dictionary meaning of inaccurate. And it is plainly visible to the eye that the images were doctored, unless you don't want to see it, no real need to wait for a court to decide it for you.
The opinion of the court is very newsworthy, especially if the punish Apple.
>Krul said that litigating parties are required by Dutch law to provide "complete and truthful" evidence to the judge.
Apple: But ours was just 6% away from the complete truth!
What are the chances of that flying with the judge?
Apple: But ours was just 6% away from the complete truth!
What are the chances of that flying with the judge?
When your phone is a plain black square with rounded corners, don't they all look the same?
http://mobile.engadget.com/2008/11/04/htcs-touch-hd-gets-ove...
http://www.theandroider.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/ca...
Are we really expecting the courts to compare aspect ratios, and corner radii to decide that one is to similar to another?
Where will we draw the line? Sorry, Apple, 4" screen with 11mm thickness was already done by htc, your phone is only 2mm thinner, that's too close to the other devices.
http://www.theandroider.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/ca...
Are we really expecting the courts to compare aspect ratios, and corner radii to decide that one is to similar to another?
Where will we draw the line? Sorry, Apple, 4" screen with 11mm thickness was already done by htc, your phone is only 2mm thinner, that's too close to the other devices.
Apple has to get this under control. They're burning good will like crazy here. Tech devices have been cloned since the dawn of the industry. They're not meaningfully going to stop this, and this kind of game just makes them look petty and insecure.
That's just pathetic.