Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flawed Evidence In EU Apple vs. Samsung Case

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the blame-the-metric-system dept.

The Courts 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."

cancel ×

297 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Incorrect? (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37097970)

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

Re:Incorrect? (3, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098008)

Double-plus good!

Re:Incorrect? (1)

nbsdx (2434648) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098216)

+1 for the reference!

Re:Incorrect? (2, Funny)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098108)

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!

Re:Incorrect? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098160)

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? (4, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098166)

If it is negligible, why go through the trouble to change it?

Re:Incorrect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098210)

They also had more iPad like icon layout vs the standard home screen and removed the Samsung branding from the Tab.

Re:Incorrect? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098264)

you're an idiot

subjectivity (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098280)

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 nothing, that's as irrelevant as unquantifiable personal opinions go in a court of law.

Re:subjectivity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098516)

Whether you think that's a fuzz about nothing, that's as irrelevant as unquantifiable personal opinions go in a court of law.

You might want to tell that to jurors. They seem to think that is precisely what they are there for.

Re:subjectivity (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098584)

Whether you think that's a fuzz about nothing, that's as irrelevant as unquantifiable personal opinions go in a court of law.

You might want to tell that to jurors. They seem to think that is precisely what they are there for.

Here you are being obtuse as I'm clearly referring to the subjective opinion of someone over the internet with respect to what constitutes a valid legal argument presented to a judge, as opposed to the role of jurors who must examine evidence according to the rules of the court and the laws applicable in that jurisdiction. Feel free to conflate both if it makes you feel there is validity in your argument.

Re:subjectivity (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098752)

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.

No Way To Spin These Lies Away (3, Insightful)

AddisonW (2318666) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098288)

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.

Re:No Way To Spin These Lies Away (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098344)

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...

Re:No Way To Spin These Lies Away (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098756)

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!

Re:No Way To Spin These Lies Away (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098592)

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?

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098702)

Just...LOL

Re:No Way To Spin These Lies Away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098778)

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

You noticed that too, huh? I thought it was funny that no one was talking about it. If you've used Honeycomb, that screen does exist. But it's different from Apple's all together in what part of the OS it is, really (well, to an extent... I recognize Apple fills that same space by just using the "Home" screen, whereas that is not the "Home" screen of Android but the "App Drawer" instead, which is usually built into the "Home" screen but is not necessarily and can be taken off all together with the right setup--I don't know of the setup on that for Honeycomb at this point, but up through Gingerbread, it has remained an option through home screen apps and I wouldn't doubt Honeycomb having the same by any means). Good luck getting anyone to accept that, though.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098334)

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? (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098960)

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.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098158)

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

Re:Incorrect? (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098358)

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!

Re:Incorrect? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098396)

A tomato is a fruit, surely on Slashdot we know stuff like that?

Re:Incorrect? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098790)

Only on the vine, its a fruit. Otherwise its a vegetable.

True story, put a little more research into your statements, the tomato is a great example of a plant that fits into both categories perfectly.

Re:Incorrect? (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098452)

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.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

ALeavitt (636946) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098596)

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!

Re:Incorrect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098656)

Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is never putting one in a fruit salad.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098696)

However, culinarily, as they are not sweet

Uhh, they are sweet.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098808)

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

Re:Incorrect? (2)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098876)

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.

Re:Incorrect? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098906)

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.

Re:Incorrect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098764)

Fuck. Steve. Jobs.

Popcorn ready... (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#37097992)

Come on folks, don't disappoint me.

Re:Popcorn ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098098)

I wish I had popcorn on me.
But now that Apple created the iPop and sued nature in to poverty, and sell per-the-corn at $1, I can no longer afford popcorn.

Seriously though, damn, they are SO screwed.
I seriously hope they don't hold back. I know they WILL, but some part of me hopes that there is some sort of sense left in the courts.
Apple should be fined a stupid amount for such bullshit, as well as causing SERIOUS damage to sales from Samsung using doctored evidence.
And someone should be held directly responsible for the fake imagery too. I'm getting sick of companies being used as armor in stuff like this. I want the actual people behind this kind of stuff to be punished directly. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Re:Popcorn ready... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098298)

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.

Re:Popcorn ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098652)

Been there, done that: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/08/10/1533241/How-Star-Trek-Artists-Imagined-the-iPad-23-Years-Later

Re:Popcorn ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098854)

You mean how the iphone stole the samsung phone design look and feel???

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37097998)

Because this case is about the aspect ratio, right?

Re:Yeah... (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098044)

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.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098250)

Should also cost their lawyers and possibly lead to disbarment. Manipulating evidence is a serious crime.

Re:Yeah... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098720)

Should also cost their lawyers and possibly lead to disbarment. Manipulating evidence is a serious crime.

They should just put the lawyer's balls in a vice.
Bailiff: Do you swear to tell the truth [tightens vice] the whole truth [tightens vice] and nothing but the truth [tightens vice]? Um, man, that's just nasty. Is there a urologist in the house?

Re:Yeah... (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098252)

Submitting photoshoped images to the court should cost them their case.

It could and should cost them much more: damages for lost profits and the presumption in any future proceedings that the evidence they give is accurate.

Re:Yeah... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098526)

From the article, there's speculation it could've been a proto image dug up during discovery and that would be actually much worse for Samsung.

Re:Yeah... (3, Informative)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098540)

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]

... and so on and so on. In fact, IIRC, its predecessors have always been marketed in a default horizontal position, and that's how I've always seen it display at Costco and at tmobile (my cell phone provider).

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.

Re:Yeah... (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098846)

There is no default. Its designed to work both ways. Portrait or landscape is irrelevant, both devices care not about their orientation. WTF kind of argument is that?

Re:Yeah... (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098204)

and they removed the big Samsung text in front of the tablet, and they say people will confuse it with an iPad? please, if they need to remove that text they know people will know it id not an iPad

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098522)

and they removed the big Samsung text in front of the tablet, and they say people will confuse it with an iPad? please, if they need to remove that text they know people will know it id not an iPad

I have a Galaxy Tab and at a glance people think it's an iPad.

Re:Yeah... (1)

the_leander (759904) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098836)

Editing images to suit themselves again?

Iirc they got slapped for that in the UK for doing exactly the same with their comparisons between the macbook air and the EeePC.

Lies make Baby Steve cry, Apple (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Lies make Baby Steve cry, Apple (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098206)

This just figures. Dishonest bastards. The Android news just keeps getting better and better today.

Re:Lies make Baby Steve cry, Apple (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098420)

Is that your comment, or a comment for an installed piece of spyware?

Re:Lies make Baby Steve cry, Apple (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098556)

I have no idea what you are talking about.

innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098018)

why everyone still thinks apple innovate anything?

all they do is remove control from the user.

now they are also trying to remove your choices.

Re:innovation (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098274)

as they saying goes...:
If you can't innovate
Litigate!

Re:innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098560)

I always knew Apple would turn into another Microsoft, but who'd have thought they'd turn into another SCO?

Re:innovation (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098582)

I propose an extension... ... and if you can't litigate, incubate (your patents)!

A rectangular screen with a bezel is original? (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098040)

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.

Re:A rectangular screen with a bezel is original? (2)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098580)

Rectangular screen, bezeled edges, rounded corners.... wait a second... [howstuffworks.com]

flawed ? (5, Insightful)

martiniturbide (1203660) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098056)

...nice and polite topic.. "Flawed"? It is "FAKE", "FALSE" evidence.

Re:flawed ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098418)

This was my first thought, "Flawed?"

More like Falsified,...

Are we to believe... (4, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098068)

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

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098226)

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.

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098262)

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?

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098290)

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

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098626)

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

Now try walking into a BestBuy in the EU and get one....

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098606)

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.

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098310)

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 ... )

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098378)

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.

Re:Are we to believe... (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Are we to believe... (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098578)

Apple tried to provide one to the court but those things are crazy hard to get ahold of these days.

Apple just used special in house rulers! (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Apple just used special in house rulers! (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098134)

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

Re:Apple just used special in house rulers! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098872)

Its just like the benchmarks that showed how much faster PPC was compared to Intel. Until Apple switched to Intel of course.

Did the existing Intels magically get faster when Apple switched? No.
Did Intel release the initial Core series which crushed the P4 architecture? Yes.

I'm not claiming that the PPC vs. Intel benchmarks were representative or anything, but the PPC had stagnated while Intel innovated.

Florian again??? (0)

sgrover (1167171) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098176)

Florian Mueller is quoted in the article. I normally stop reading when I see his name. And I do see a fair bit of articles mentioning him posted to SlashDot. Hmm, and the article was submitted by an anonymous reader... coincidence??

Re:Florian again??? (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098222)

Agreed, between this fellow and BitCoin articles, it's becoming evident that there is some sort of undercurrent that actively manipulates /. or whereby /. actively contributes.

Or perhaps I'm just getting more cynical in my old age.

Re:Florian again??? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098332)

What's with the obsession with Mueller? Wasn't he accused to being anti-Google in the Java case? Now he's anti-Apple and pro-Google in the article, is that a problem?

As far as I can find out, he did the crime of questioning PJ's motivations and funding which is considered a crime against a sacred cow in these parts. However, speculation is rife that he's a paid shill for someone. Anyone miss the delicious irony in this, one is considered above board and her motives unquestionable to the degree of being sacrosanct, whereas another is actively accused regarding his motivations?

Re:Florian again??? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098676)

Florian is a high-school graduate, that's it. Referring to him on legal matters (as the article did) is a dubious choice, regardless whether he happens to be right or wrong in this particular instance. I would have preferred to read the opinion of an actual expert.

Wait, what? (1, Interesting)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098194)

You mean Apple lied, fabricated, or otherwise obfuscated the truth? You. Don't. Say. Color me [not] shocked.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098648)

This [youtube.com] might just be appropriate.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098850)

Yep, that's pretty much spot on LOL!

Kyle going to work for Apple? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098234)

Clearly this image was supposed to be for demonstrative purposes only, and was not intended to be considered a factual statement.

Someday Somewhere In Some Court (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098270)

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!

Re:Someday Somewhere In Some Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098404)

Except that the client is actually 5 ft 11.5 in, weighs 135 lbs has a handlebar moustache and has dirty blond hair.

Those Darned Interns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098286)

The fact that the information regarding screen size is accurate, but the re-sized photo isn't is such a minor 'aspect' of the case that it seems to trivial to me. If this is a proceeding (e)stopper, I'd be quite surprised. On top of which, the story doesn't seem to indicate that it's viewed as a material issue by either side, let alone the court.

Is it a slow news aggregation week for the flagging performance of the Slashdot ad revenue generator?

Perhaps Apple isn't the only one that needs a more dedicated, committed intern... maybe Slashdot could use some help finding real news items to distract the community from more meaningful pursuits.

WHO GIVES A FUCK ?? APPLE RULEZ !! STEVE IS GOD !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098342)

So just eat shit and die you fucking neanderthalers !! LEAVE STEVE ALONE !!

What the hell? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098372)

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

Re:What the hell? (1)

padraic2 (2432584) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098622)

Agreed - the fact that this constituted "evidence" at all is laughably ridiculous.

The proof of whether the image manipulation was in (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098376)

Florian says the picture probably wasn't intentional and was likely from a pre-release photo. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the new interface that was only available after the pre-release photos? Wasn't the screen already sourced and aspect ratio known?

If this was really about copying the look why didn't they go after HP's Touchpad which practically has the same dimensions and design, as well as having EXACTLY the same screen specs 9.7" 1024x768 IPS panel. Who knows it might actually be the exact same panel.

Re:The proof of whether the image manipulation was (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098434)

Why would it even be a problem if they use the same panel?

Screen ratio is not design it is obvious, resolution is bound by price and rounded corners are again totally obvious.

The explanation should be awesome (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098384)

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 (3, Informative)

steveha (103154) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098398)

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.

Why is it even important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098412)

Sounds like a boring detail, what is the significance?

Aspect ratio! (2)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Aspect ratio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098684)

If that were the case, won't the icons on one side look thinner?

Link to the Actual Court Filing (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#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

Jobs wishes (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098744)

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.

Are Slashtards really this shallow? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37098788)

Do you guys honestly believe that this was the sole piece of evidence to compel an EU judge to order an injunction across most of Europe? This is why you don't do IP law for a living. Take a look at Apple's community design cert and note it's scope.

Re:Are Slashtards really this shallow? Really? (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37098820)

You're right, falsifying evidence is no big deal as long as it's not the only piece of evidence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>