Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case 297
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."
Look and Feel redux (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Informative)
They also made the surround on the Tab darker to make it look more like the iPad. Submitting photoshoped images to the court should cost them their case.
Not to mention that the "evidence" shows the Galaxy Tab in a vertical position when the default/intended usage is in a horizontal position.
Exhibit A: Samsungs Galaxy Tab 1.0 microsite: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/index.html [samsung.com]
Exhibit B: Endgadget Galaxy Tab 1.0 review : http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-review/ [engadget.com]
Exhibit C: CNet's review : http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-10/4505-3126_7-34505347.html [cnet.com]
Call me conspiracy theorist, but this cannot be by accident. Morphed dimensions by itself an accident? Maybe (and that's pushing it). Shown in a vertical position as opposed to the horizontal position it is shown everywhere else as an accident? Maybe. But both, as legal evidence? Got to have been done on purpose.
Link to the Actual Court Filing (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are we to believe... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Link to the Actual Court Filing (Score:4, Informative)
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.
No such thing as evidence in a German injunction (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Link to the Actual Court Filing (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Come on.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Come on.. (Score:4, Informative)
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.