Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts EU Handhelds Portables Apple

Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case 297

Posted by Soulskill
from the blame-the-metric-system dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Dutch site webwereld.nl has found incorrect evidence submitted by Apple (Google translation of Dutch original) in the EU design-right case against Samsung. In the ex-parte case, a German judge recently issued a temporary injunction against the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the whole EU except the Netherlands. The faulty evidence is a side-by-side picture of an iPad 2 and the Galaxy Tab. The Tab is scaled to fit the iPad2, and the aspect ratio is changed from 1.46 to 1.36, which more closely matches the iPad 2 aspect ratio of 1.3, according to webwereld.nl."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case

Comments Filter:
  • Incorrect? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:23PM (#37097970) Journal
    An injunction against Samsung's inferior copy was issued, protecting our sacred exclusive right to produce rectangular objects with touchscreens. Any evidence that contributed to this correct outcome was itself necessarily correct.

    -S. Jobs
    • by bennomatic (691188) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:25PM (#37098008) Homepage
      Double-plus good!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by camperslo (704715)

      A less than 7% change in the aspect ratio is negligible. And they're complaining about the size of a picture too? Good grief. The point is how similar the products look to consumers. Of course it's best to have things displayed at the same size to best see similarities in the design, any border width, curvature of corners etc.

      If someone wants to fuss about small differences in size, please do something about those containers of ice cream that aren't a half-gallon any more. That's a crime against humani

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        They also changed the color of the Tab to make it look more similar than it really is.

        Of course it's best to have things displayed at the same size to best see similarities in the design, any border width, curvature of corners etc.

        Resizing the image changes border width, as it change the size of everything. They should have just submitted some actual tablets.

      • Re:Incorrect? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hijacked Public (999535) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:38PM (#37098166)
        If it is negligible, why go through the trouble to change it?
      • A less than 7% change in the aspect ratio is negligible. And they're complaining about the size of a picture too? Good grief. The point is how similar the products look to consumers. Of course it's best to have things displayed at the same size to best see similarities in the design, any border width, curvature of corners etc.

        If someone wants to fuss about small differences in size, please do something about those containers of ice cream that aren't a half-gallon any more. That's a crime against humanity!

        Just because it is negligible to you that does not imply it is negligible to the case (after all, Apple claimed that they are "practically identical".) Considering the difference in aspect ratio, and the fact that the wrong evidence shows the Galaxy Tab in a vertical position (as opposed to the horizontal which is the default), then you see that there is a problem with the evidence presented to the judge as proof that these two products are "practically identical".

        Whether you think that's a fuzz about no

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          Just because it is negligible to you that does not imply it is negligible to the case (after all, Apple claimed that they are "practically identical".)

          And they practically are. Not exactly. Not technically. But practically, they are identical to the casual observer.

          Way to prove their case for them in an attempt to do the opposite. Please don't try to be a lawyer.

          • by myurr (468709)

            Do you honestly think that if you put the two side by side that the average consumer would be unable to see the difference? Apple have deliberately misrepresented their case here to manipulate the courts into giving them their injunction. They have adjusted the size, bezel colour and branding of their competitors product to produce an image allowing them to claim it's practically identical. That in and of itself is illegal as it is falsifying evidence amongst other offenses.

      • Let's just sum up how badly Apple lied to the court:

        * Altered the aspect ratio

        * Changed the colour of the device

        * Rotated the device 90 degrees from its standard

        * Fabricated screen contents to look like an iPad instead of the standard Android OS

        Judges have little tolerance for crap like this.

        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:52PM (#37098344) Journal
          Unfortunately, the bottom of the injunction against Samsung read "The Court So Rules. Sent From My iPad", so the judge may be a bit more lenient...
          • by umghhh (965931)
            I am so shocked. Evil Samsung goes really trough lengths - they even make devices in such mischievous ways that they do not look like ours! I am sure there is a law against that!
        • I'll give you the aspect ratio if you give me the rest:

          Changed the colo(u)r?

          It's black. Blackety black black.

          Rotated the device 90 degrees from its standard?

          It's designed to do that.

          Fabricated screen contents to look like an iPad instead of the standard Android OS?

          You mean organized icons similar to the iPad for the point of comparison?

          • Changed the colo(u)r?

            It's black. Blackety black black.

            The way it's been colored in the Apple photo has been darkened. They made two mistakes while darkening it

            1. The Camera is missing. Even under poor lighting conditions, it should be at least somewhat visible if hard to see.
            2. The Samsung logo is missing.

            Fabricated screen contents to look like an iPad instead of the standard Android OS?

            You mean organized icons similar to the iPad for the point of comparison?

            Yes, because the look of the OS was one of Apple's claims against it:

            Die Gesamterscheinung der zwei oben gezeigten Produkte ist fast identisch, weil das GalaxyTab 10.1 alle unterscheidungskrÃftigen Elemente der Ausstattung des iPad 2 kopiert: ... (vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays

            Google Translate tells me that phrase means this:

            The overall appearance of the two shown above products is almost identical, because the GalaxyTab 10.1 All the distinctive elements of equipment to copy iPad 2: ... (vi) if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display

            If you tweak things to intentionally make them look the same just so you can claim that they look the same, that would tampering.

            Unfortunately, t

      • by Sinthet (2081954)

        I think its important. They're accusing Samsung of copying their design, and to prove it they decide to resize samsung's product as to make it look as similar as possible to their own design? Somebody mentioned they changed some colors as well.

        This is seriously unfair for Samsung. At the very least, the case should be thrown out. Personally, I think Apple owes the courts an apology, and at least some symbolic monetary compensation to Samsung. This kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed.

      • Re:Incorrect? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:14PM (#37098678)
        It is either an altered/retouched image of a Galaxy Tab or it isn't. There is no reason to alter the image to look more like an iPad if it already looks too much like an iPad.



        Disclaimer: Mac & iPhone owner.
      • by arose (644256)
        I guess comparing a home screen to a secondary application chooser is also negligible? All together though, the Galaxy looks entirely unlike the iPad, which is not negligible at all.
      • The modified picture looks like an iPad, the unmodified one does not really look so much like one. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is and falsify some evidence next time you provide it to a court and see how well that works out for you.

        Nobody ever said it was a crime against humanity, but it definitely is a crime in most countries.

        I bet that judge is going to have a coronary when he finds out he's been made a fool of in such a high profile case...
      • Re:Incorrect? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by andydread (758754) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:40PM (#37099060)
        Its not about a less that 7% change or an "almost 10% change" Its about an attempt to fool the court into believing that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the Ipad using doctored evidence. Such as manipulating the aspect ratio in order to make the dimesions of the products more similar, Its about removing the Samsung logo from the evidence submitted to the court. Its about changing the color, also taking a picture with the Android app window open and depicting that as the home screen which is not true. etc. All of these things display a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and play the judge for a fool. I'm not sure if you would be amused if you were a Judge in a situation like this.
        • It's a good thing I'm not a judge, I suppose... if it were me, I'd issue a punitive injunction against Apple selling the iPad 2 under any circumstances, for wasting the court's time, and for submitting falsified evidence in an effort to obtain the same injunction against Samsung.

    • by Asic Eng (193332)
      These guys [hagengrote.de] will be next. A black rectangular design with a fruit on it? Who do they think they are fooling?
      • by rvw (755107)

        These guys [hagengrote.de] will be next. A black rectangular design with a fruit on it? Who do they think they are fooling?

        I think they fooled you! It's a tomato, you fruitcake!

        • by tomhudson (43916)

          These guys [hagengrote.de] will be next. A black rectangular design with a fruit on it? Who do they think they are fooling?

          I think they fooled you! It's a tomato, you fruitcake!

          Tomatoes [wikipedia.org] are fruits, you fruitcake! :-)

          Just because Reagan tried to claim ketchup was a vegetable to make it look like the feds were doing better than they were with the nutritional standards of school lunch programs doesn't make it so.

          • by ALeavitt (636946)
            Botanically, as tomatoes are the ovary of the tomato plant, they are considered to be fruits. However, culinarily, as they are not sweet and are primarily used in savory dishes, tomatoes are considered to be vegetables. The upshot of this is that no matter what you call them, you are wrong. Thanks, science!
            • by beelsebob (529313)

              However, culinarily, as they are not sweet

              Uhh, they are sweet.

              • by BitZtream (692029)

                If you're eating sweet tomatos, you're probably getting drunk too. Heres a hint: eat them before they are rotting and fermenting.

                • by PRMan (959735)
                  If you're eating un-sweet tomatoes, you need to stop buying them at the store and plant your own tomato garden. Trust me, when vine-ripened, they get too sweet to put on sandwiches and people eat them like fruit.
            • by tomhudson (43916)

              So, since lemons and limes are sour-tasting, they are not, culinarily speaking, fruits?

              How about grapefruit, which is a bit of both?

              Or tart-tasting apples? Crab-apples sure are fruit, but they will certainly make you pucker.

              Tomatoes are fruits. Perceived sweetness has nothing to do with whether something is considered a fruit, neither in the lab nor the kitchen.

              Next you'll be saying that peanuts are nuts.

              • Next you'll be saying that peanuts are nuts.

                Maybe Linus and Peppermint Patty, but Charlie Brown, Lucy, Snoopy and Sally, nahhhh

  • Come on folks, don't disappoint me.

    • I just wish somebody would accuse Apple of copying the look and feel of something so we could shout about how Apple should quit ripping off ideas and do something original.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:25PM (#37098010)

    My psychic powers are tingling. I'm sensing a "It was just an honest mistake, a simple oversight from our graphics department. Nothing to see here. These aren't the Droids you're looking for." statement coming from Apple. If I'm right, James Randi owes me money.

  • by Animats (122034) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:27PM (#37098040) Homepage

    Apple is claiming to have originated the concept of a rectangular screen with a dark bezel of equal width on all sides and rounded corners on the bezel? That's the standard format of most generic LCD monitors and book-like "e-readers". If you're going to make a touch-screen device, that's the obvious form factor.

  • flawed ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by martiniturbide (1203660) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:28PM (#37098056) Homepage Journal
    ...nice and polite topic.. "Flawed"? It is "FAKE", "FALSE" evidence.
    • by pz (113803)

      "Intentionally misleading and fraudulent," would be more acurate phrasing. And a more appropriate reaction would be to throw the case out, followed by disbarment proceedings for the lawyers.

      Harumph.

  • Are we to believe... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arcite (661011) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:29PM (#37098068)
    That there were no physical tablets to compare in person? Was the judgement made solely based on 'pictures?...
    • by whoever57 (658626)

      That there were no physical tablets to compare in person? Was the judgement made solely based on 'pictures?..

      What, and give the judges a way to see that the back sides of the 2 tablets are different? Hardly likely.

    • Maybe it helped them take up the case. Judges and lawyers are usually pretty non-tech savvy and Android tablets are pretty obscure right now anyway.

      Regardless of the justification for the result, evidence submitted by lawyers to court in a lawsuit should NOT be messed with in any way. Agreed?

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Anything you can walk into bestbuy and get is not obscure.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        If anything they should have submitted the undoctored original, the modification, and a detailed list of the modifications. This way they still can point out how similar they are, without coloring the tone.

    • by Asic Eng (193332)
      Probably: courts like to have evidence on paper, so that it can be signed, filed, reproduced and published. (Imagine you were a judge and the case was about similarity in truck design ... )
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        I would imagine I would want to see both trucks, at the very least be allowed to hire an impartial photographer to get some pictures.

        • by Asic Eng (193332)

          Well, I have personal experience with German civil courts, though not in that field. It seems to me that generally evidence is submitted by the parties involved and it's up to the opposing side to challenge that evidence. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, both sides are assumed to act in good faith and be trustworthy.

          So if Apples submitted false data, why did Samsung's legal team not challenge that?

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:51PM (#37098330)

      Probably. If you read TFA, it was an 'ex parte" decision. Samsung wasn't even allowed to respond to or see the complaint before the ruling was issued, and Apple's complaint was the basis for the decision. It is also temporary, and this sort of thing bodes very (very very) badly for Apple. Hopefully they get slapped silly for this. Accident or not, it clearly indicates a contempt of the legal system.

      Then again, it should have been obvious Apple had no true respect for the legal system when they sued Samsung for making a thin rounded-edge rectangle.

    • by bberens (965711)
      Apple tried to provide one to the court but those things are crazy hard to get ahold of these days.
    • Let's review all that is being implied here :
      - 1 picture on page 28 of 1 document apparently swayed the verdict Apple's way
      - Samsungs lawyers were incompetents that didn't have enough arguments to counter that 1 picture

      Conspiracy fail.

      • You should try reading TFA (or at least have read this post [slashdot.org]). Apparently, Samsung's lawyers weren't invited to Apple's little injunction party.
      • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Monday August 15, 2011 @04:22PM (#37099668)

        Le sigh... points for reading, really. :)

        1. It's a temporary injunction, not a permanent one.
        2. It's a preliminary injunction that was issued to stop sales pending an actual hearing.
        3. (and most importantly) Samsung's lawyers weren't allowed to look at the submission from Apple prior to the injunction being issued, because the actual hearing hasn't actually started. They also weren't allowed to argue against the injunction... as others have pointed out, that's what an "ex parte" judgement means.

        Now that Samsung's lawyers can look at and dissect Apple's case in preparation for the actual hearing, I expect that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things Apple has done wrong on this one.

  • by Kenja (541830) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:29PM (#37098074)
    Its just like the benchmarks that showed how much faster PPC was compared to Intel. Until Apple switched to Intel of course. Or how they proved that the G4 Cube was the worlds most powerful super computer. Apples benchmarks and measuring systems are just that much "better" then the rest of the worlds. For example, the universal measurement for a tablet size is IPUs or IPad Units and the smallest IPS is 1. So all tablets SMALLER then one IPU are in fact the same size as an IPad.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Of course that is true. The silly x86 CPUs had to run those totally fair benchmarks in a PPC emulator.

    • by JamesP (688957)

      Well, the G4 was very fast. example: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/photoshop_1GHzPCvsG4.html [xlr8yourmac.com]

      Intel only became competitive when Moore's Law turned all the x86 crap irrelevant (in terms of die size). And then they went down the P4 fiasco.

      Too bad IBM didn't improve the G5 (I'm sure it wasn't very easy for them. And of course, Intel has lots of R&D there)

  • Wait, what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WillyWanker (1502057)
    You mean Apple lied, fabricated, or otherwise obfuscated the truth? You. Don't. Say. Color me [not] shocked.
  • Clearly this image was supposed to be for demonstrative purposes only, and was not intended to be considered a factual statement.
  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:46PM (#37098270) Journal

    Prosecution: The man before you murdered ten people in cold blood, and we have a witness to prove it!

    Defense: Your honor, witness claims the man he was was 5 ft 11, weights 130lbs, had a handlebar moustache and had blond hair. My client is 6 ft 3, weighs 330 lbs, is clean shaven and has brown hair. The police photos were intentionally doctored to make my client look like that man.

    Prosecution: Your honor, we've merely altered the image to make it clearer that the accused is obviously the same man! Any sensible person would see the two are the same man!

  • Why weren't they examining actual devices? What am I missing here?

  • Probably follow one of these formats:

    a) We had an elderly worker collecting images for the court. She had them on her laptop and mistakenly transmogrified them.

    b) Our twitter account was hacked and the faulty images placed instead

    c) We mistakenly used pictures from the apple website which are scaled to enhance browsing on mobile devices

    d) It was a typo

  • Look and Feel redux (Score:4, Informative)

    by steveha (103154) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:56PM (#37098398) Homepage

    This reminds me of the "Look and Feel" lawsuit against Windows, way back a couple of decades ago. Apple sued Microsoft and HP, claiming the "look and feel" of Windows was too close to the Mac. As part of the evidence, there was a screen shot of a Mac desktop, and a screen shot of Windows with some HP shell software (called "New Wave") running. But to "improve" the screen shot, Apple had used the user-customization features of New Wave to customize the desktop, and every customization made it look more like an exact copy of the Mac.

    IIRC the default settings were colorful, but Apple customized all the colors to black on white to more exactly match the Mac. They moved around icons. I think they even renamed "Recycle.Bin" to "Trash". (But it's been quite a few years so maybe my memory is making that up.)

    Sorry, no links to support my memory; Google didn't find me any screenshots from this pre-Internet lawsuit.

    This sort of trick doesn't win you any friends in the court, and it always gets revealed, so it's kind of stupid that Apple tried it.

  • by mmcuh (1088773) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:58PM (#37098442)
    No no, they didn't change the aspect ratio of the photo. You see, the Geniuses (TM) at Apple have designed the iPad to be viewed exactly at 21.3 degrees for the most ergonomic User Experience (TM). At that angle, it has the intended aspect ratio of 1.36.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:09PM (#37098590)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/10-08-04-Apple-Motion-for-EU-Wide-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1

    Despite what the commentards are saying here, there are plenty of pictures in that filing showing the different aspect ratios. The picture called out here (page 28) has scaled the two tablets to be the same height, though this results in the Galaxy Tab 10.0 being narrower in both the screen and total device width -- it's just not obvious unless you line them up vertically.

    And for the commentards claiming that there should be a logo, that the Galaxy Tab doesn't do portrait, etc. I direct you here:
    http://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1-front-and-back-view-portrait.jpg

    • by arose (644256) on Monday August 15, 2011 @05:19PM (#37100320)

      Despite what the commentards are saying here, there are plenty of pictures in that filing showing the different aspect ratios. The picture called out here (page 28) has scaled the two tablets to be the same height, though this results in the Galaxy Tab 10.0 being narrower in both the screen and total device width -- it's just not obvious unless you line them up vertically.

      It just so happens that page 28 has the only full frontal that isn't at an angle. It seems whoever put this together was very careful to avoid comparisons that showed any differences. The closest we get to a picture showing how different the aspect ratio makes them appear is on page 39, even there, the angle makes it less obvious. The picture on page 28 isn't just scaled vertically, the aspect ratio of the screen is 1.5 in this doctored picture, the actual aspect ratio is 1.6. In a proper comparison [imgur.com] the width difference is clearly evident.

    • by oogoliegoogolie (635356) on Monday August 15, 2011 @05:54PM (#37100656)

      What are you talking about? I just scrolled through the scribd link you presented and it's plain-as-day that the majority of pictures are doctored. Page36:the ipad is photographed at an angle to make it match the Galaxy's aspect ratio. Ditto on page 39.

  • That it was another body part instead of his nose that would grow when he lies. I wonder if this will fall under some sort of perjury law, or something related to falsifying evidence.
  • by etresoft (698962) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:38PM (#37099032)
    Just below the picture in question, the sizes of the two devices are clearly stated. I didn't even need Google Translate to see that.
  • Not so much (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus...slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:41PM (#37099076) Homepage Journal
    If you actually go to the complaint [scribd.com], you see that there are several photos of the actual Tab, showing the different aspect ratio. There's also a listing of the actual dimensions of both, side by side.
  • Come on.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wovel (964431) on Monday August 15, 2011 @04:30PM (#37099754) Homepage

    At least Slashdot could have mentioned the other 20 photographs in the complaint. All of which clearly depict the appropriate aspect ratio. Oh well. Independent thought really is dead.

    • Re:Come on.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by arose (644256) on Monday August 15, 2011 @07:12PM (#37101266)
      Not one of those other photographs is a proper face-to-face comparison showing the rather stark difference in size. Looking at significant angles masks this, the closest is on page 39, but it still is less than obvious. Of course none of this excuses the doctoring of any one of the pictures.
    • Re:Come on.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kynde (324134) <kynde@noSpam.iki.fi> on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @04:51AM (#37104844)

      At least Slashdot could have mentioned the other 20 photographs in the complaint. All of which clearly depict the appropriate aspect ratio. Oh well. Independent thought really is dead.

      At least you could have mentioned the other 20 photographs in the complaint all to be from an angle. None of which depicts the aspect ratios as clearly as the picture in page 28 does or would have. Oh well. Apple fanboys accept one in 20 pictures to be fake when evidence is presented.

  • I am just curious here. There are clearly still two sides here -- "for Apple" and "against Apple." I am unashamedly in the latter camp even if I do currently own some Apple computers -- I dislike what they are doing, not necessarily the computers. But more and more of this stuff keeps emerging which shows Apple for being a pretty disgusting company. Have any Apple fans here reconsidered their position after any or all of this? (Or are you still "thinking different"?)

  • by nicovl (222095) on Monday August 15, 2011 @05:32PM (#37100460) Homepage

    The title of this slashdot post, the refered article and many of the comments seem to be a little miss-informed.

    Everyone is refering to evidence whereas no evidence is required or submitted when applying for an injunction (Einstweilige Verfügung) in Germany. To get a German injunction, the submitter simply has to make their claim believable to the judge. There is no need for any evidence... simply statements, references and photos that make the request for the injunction believable. To make matters worse, these injunctions are dealt with by Civil Courts meaning the judges have no idea about technology or design. The submitted believability statements (as they are called in German) are not tested for validity they are not properly scrutinized and they need no real foundation they simply have to be made believable.

    The problem here is the German justice system more than anything else. Any justice system that can make such far reaching decisions based on belief is without a doubt not worth taking seriously.

    Wouldn't it be nice to see companies actually competing instead of playing silly mafia games with lawyers and judges. A flawed system run by incompetent people simply trying to make some cash based on nonsens instead of doing something productive... Who needs them?

"Probably the best operating system in the world is the [operating system] made for the PDP-11 by Bell Laboratories." - Ted Nelson, October 1977

Working...