More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung 345
jfruhlinger writes "It seems that Apple can't stop Photoshopping evidence in its EU lawsuit against Samsung. We already saw that the company used trickery in its side-by-side comparison of the iPad and Galaxy Tab; now it appears that it's fudging the comparison between the iPhone and Galaxy S as well."
Dear Apple (Score:5, Informative)
It is a flat screen with icons. No, you didn't think it up first. Now sit back down.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a flat screen with icons. No, you didn't think it up first.
But they where the first to do it in such a way that they're making massively huge butt loads of money.
So everyone else copies them in an attempt to cash in on their success.
Welcome to capitalism. And lawyers and all the other nonsense that comes with it...
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The Samsung F700 was introduced so close to the same time as the iPhone that neither could actually be a copy, you just can't rush out a finished phone in a month, no matter how good you are.
The simple fact is that everything is a derivative of what came before. Both companies were exposed to the same precursors, had the same goal and the same markets. They had the same components available for use in their product. They existed in the same societies with the same sense of aesthetics. It's hardly a surprise that they came up with very similar designs.
The same argument applies to the pads. The pad design has been envisioned a bazillion times, including the thing that Captain Kirk would periodically sign on the bridge of the enterprise. We then saw an update to the vision on TNG (it was even called a PADD) The only thing preventing them was the basic technology behind them. We needed cheap enough and large enough touchscreens, powerful and thin batteries, and components that were efficient enough to allow decent battery life and not overheat in spite of having no room for airflow. It's no surprise that when those base elements became practical one by one, that the aesthetic of the time, the desires of the market, and the constraints of technology would come together to produce similar devices.
Interestingly, if we are to believe ANY of Apple's marketing claims, we must conclude that the devices are worlds apart. Apple claims that their product is the one and only everywhere but in court where they claim that there is another product just like theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to the fact that the behavior of the devices is likely to be different. An icon is just a small picture, and the layout of icons in that way has been around since at least the Program Manager [wikimedia.org] in Windows (with provisions for screen shape).
This case is like a beauty contest between metric and imperial measurement screws. Which one is best? A 14mm screw or a 9/16 screw? I think that the only thing we know is that the customers are going to get screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
This might be true but Apple pioneered today's tablets. Even Ballmer was surprised on how well the iPad sold. In fact, no one believed a larger iPhone (which the iPad isn't really) would actually be worthwhile. Even Android took many months to develop a version of their OS which took advantage of the larger screen resolution. I understand Apple wanting to defend their product, what other choice do they have? It's up to Samsung to convince the judge now. I hope he'll rely on looking at the actual devices and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's a thing that should protect any party where form is part of the function. For example, clothes cannot be copyrighted for that very same reason. (Yes, I know this is not about copyright but the reason is the same.) Automobiles enjoy similar protection from such prosecution. Apple wouldn't try this in the US because they would have no case. Apple is doing more than one kind of shopping here -- shopping their cases in various jurisdictions in order to get their way.
Apple's success is pri
Re: (Score:3)
I feel terribly sorry for waking you, but if what you're saying is true, then Sony would be bankrupt.
I think it's only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple were merely the first smartphone manufacturer to successfully market their devices to the masses and make them cool, same with tablets. They didn't invent the smartphone, not by a long shot, nor did they invent the tablet.
You also make it sound like competition is a bad thing - it categorically is a great thing for everyone except Apple. Even Apple fanbois should be embracing the competition as that has been and will be the driver behind Apple pushing their own products forward. Look at how OS X ha
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
That's right. My Windows 95 desktop was full of icons well before the iPhone arrived.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Original Mac OS (not X) and Windows versions were full of icons too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And so was the Windows 3.x [wikipedia.org] desktops. Add to that the Palm pilot [pdamuseum.com] which originated back in '96.
Of course - Apple did have desktop icons already back in their first Mac and the predecessor Lisa [wikipedia.org].
But all this was grandfathered by the Xerox Alto [wikipedia.org] from '73 but even that was based on experiences from the SAGE Project [wikipedia.org] and the Sketchpad [wikipedia.org]. As you can read from History of the graphical user interface [wikipedia.org].
So I would say that Apple can stick it, and that if this case is dismissed (as it should be) they have lost a lot of credi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
It is a flat screen with icons. No, you didn't think it up first. Now sit back down.
This is the successor to their last slogan "Think different". It's called "See different". It will be followed by "Hear different", "Touch Different" and "Taste Different". They were going to do "Smell Different" but RMS already has a patent on that.
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
For some reason... I think it would be more funny if Apple tried to photoshop evidence in a suit against Adobe.
You know what i'm saying? Using their own product against them <EG>
Re:Dear Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No...
My Monochrome Handspring PDA had a flat screen with icons. My Tungsten had a Flat screen (color) with icons.
Heck, even my no-name Electronic Agenda (China) from 1994 had those.
My portable Rolodex didn't have icons, but it had a flat screen...
Re:WARNING! VIRUS LINK! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what a virus is
Re: (Score:2)
Damn IT... I Intended to have a SARCASM TAG, but /. kinda fucked uped on me and removed it...
The point is, yeah, Mr kdawson, I know how to operate a computer, been doing that since 1979, please thank you, come again
(Go soft on me, I was only 8 at the time)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My bet is that many spammers are part of anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The HP iPaq was manufactured between 2001 and 2004, contained gps, cell phone, wifi, touch screen and had 3 buttons. It was even preceded by the compaq Aero and Jornada , somewhere around 1998. These did not have color screens but were definitively grandparent of the iDevices. The had a touchscreen, icons, could play games, connect to the internet etc. Apple should stop pretending they are inventors, they are designers. The concept of the iPhone had existed for years in many forms before Jobs announced that
the two pictures were to show features, not size (Score:2, Informative)
They were two separate pictures (the other site photoshopped them together and indicates they did so).
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
Come on, stop reaching here.
The pictures were to show the devices are substantially similar, not to show scale.
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're not trying to prove that the sequoia copied the fiat. This is the equivalent of fiat making their small, cheap car look as spacious as the largest toyota in an add. Except, there it'd be false advertising, here, its falsifying evidence.
if the Fiat were a smaller dupe of the Sequoia (Score:2)
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
If the pics were shown to make a point of the interior space, then it would be misleading. If it were to show similarity of design, it wouldn't be misleading.
In this case, the pics were to show similarity of design, not size.
Re:if the Fiat were a smaller dupe of the Sequoia (Score:5, Informative)
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
When we are talking about design patents [wikipedia.org], yes, Scale does matter.
In addition, if it can be shown that the design has certain utility, the patent of the design is invalid. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear).
no size doesn't matter (Score:2)
If it looks similar in ornamentation and provides the same functionality, it is in conflict.
It'd be difficult to argue the devices don't provide the same functionality based upon a 10% size difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If it looks similar in ornamentation and provides the same functionality, it is in conflict.
Functionality is completely irrelevent, and in fact, if it can be shown that the functionality requires that design, then the design patent is invalid. Design patents do not provide patent protection over functionality or utility; only the specific visual design is protected.
Any difference in the design, including size differences, can mean the design is not infringing, therefore they are very important.
Much
Re: (Score:3)
What bothers me is; if size wouldn't matter for this lawsuit about design, why did Apple go to the effort of trying to scale the Samsung to be equal to size, More significantly, why did Apple distort the aspect ratio in the tablet picture. Either they have the most stupid lawyers in the world or they knew their evidence would fail if it were truthful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:5, Informative)
+4 Misinformative?
From TFA for those that can't be bothered to read:
But the picture of purported Galaxy S has been resized about 6%, making the Galaxy S appear smaller and more similar to Apple's phone. The height of the purported Galaxy S that Apple displays matches the iPhone exactly. The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They did that for the Tab (in just one image out of hundreds of pages?). They didn't do it for the Galaxy S, which is what this story is about and which is what the person you're responding to was talking about.
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:5, Interesting)
That picture is selective. Not all tablets looked like that pre-ipad. For example, take a look at my old visionplate: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/tibman/VisionPlate/DSCN0921.jpg [photobucket.com]
Looks almost exactly like an Ipad.. except it predates the ipad by many years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I enjoyed your link.
I never accepted tablets that imitating Star Trek technology had to look so awfully different. Just look at all the handles and purposeless bumps on the frame, plus all the wasted space and buttons.
But then I look at the Windows logo on the top tablets. It's evidence that those were kludges meant to run a full-featured Windows OS, assigning a stylus to do nearly all input (and the more alien handles and margin buttons as another kludge to fix the limitations of the stylus-only push)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That covers the car analogy angle as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even look at the picture in TFA? Note how much the middle phone (the shopped Samsung image) looks like the iPhone and how much it does NOT look look like an un-shopped image of the Samsung to the right.
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're claiming that two items are nearly identical and then to do so you show a picture of them the same size when they are significantly different sizes. then yes it is a problem.
Re:the two pictures were to show features, not siz (Score:4, Informative)
Especially when you also choose a non-default background image and icon arrangement
Re: (Score:2)
the flaw in your argument here is that apple's images had icons that were the correct aspect ratio but the shape was wrong. if the image was just squashed, the icons would be squashed as well.
you are talking about the wrong picture (Score:2)
This article is about the resized (keeping aspect ratio correct) Galaxy S versus iPhone.
And yes, the icons in the Galaxy Tab pic were squashed. Look at the clock icon in the Galaxy Tab picture. It's supposed to be circular, it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when one is accusing the other of copycatting then yes it should be realistically represented, the scaled image does make samsung look nearly identical in shape and size, which IS a major selling point on the iphone. In the real world there is a noticeable difference.
reaching would be apple thinking they invented glossy round web2.0 icons, and how dare anyone arrange them on a grid!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
It's interesting you bring up cars, because there's plenty of cases in the trade where size matters. For example, the check-chart (I forget if it has a funny spelling) book that has all the engine silhouettes has them all to scale. And more to the point, frame drawings are shown with a 1:1 aspect ratio, because nothing else makes sense...
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing to scale the images maintaining aspect ratio. However, if you stretch the image to try to argue that (for example), the Ford Taurus and the new VW are clones, you have crossed the line into fraud.
That's also not the default home screen (Score:5, Informative)
They also rearranged the Galaxy S's home screen so that it'd look more like the iPhone. Apple, I mean, not Samsung.
Go ahead, take a look at the real thing [samsung.com]. That looks nothing like an iPhone.
For one thing, it supports widgets, which the iPhone doesn't. (Apparently the idea that people might want to get weather information on their phone still evades Apple.)
Another good hint is the home button on the screen Apple's using, which probably doesn't appear on the home screen.
Re:That's also not the default home screen (Score:5, Informative)
I did the lighting for a number of the TV commercials for the Galaxy S. The apple screen shots are pretty close to the 'official' home screen layout approved by T-Mobile and Samsung.
e.g. http://galaxy-s.t-mobile.com/ [t-mobile.com]
I think the lawsuit is stupid but Apple didn't really game the homescreen in any way. That's an approved Samsung screenshot.
History repeating itself (Score:4, Interesting)
The lawsuits aren't stupid, they're a (imo) desperate attempt to keep history from repeating itself.
In the 1980's, Apple seemed to have it all, only to have their flagship gadget elbowed into a niche as soon as the windows PC was capable of doing pretty much the same things, but at a more affordable price, and offering a more open platform both for software development and hardware vendors. At the time, Apple sued Microsoft for stealing their 'look and feel', but lost. It turns out, you can't patent or copyright a 'look and feel'. (Unless the competition starts using an apple for a logo, or simply copying the hardware and software. This is common enough, in China you can buy devices that are basically iPhones, presumably made in the same factory, except for the Apple logo. You get those separately in the form of stickers you can apply yourself if you want).
Even though Apple's claim is obviously true: Samsung obviously made these gadgets deliberately similar to the corresponding Apple product in order to compete in the same high margin market segment, I doubt a new series of 'look and feel' lawsuits is going to be more successful.
Right now, the prices are similar, but soon enough the Android devices will start to become cheaper. I will not be surprised if 15 or 20 years from now, Apple will be a fancy niche player, falling further and further behind their Asian competitors and their Google OS. Larry Page taking the place of Bill Gates as the most hated evil business man on the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple should sue T-Mobile. It is not approved Samsung screenshot. It is approved screenshot of hardware sold by T-Mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought I'd mention that weather on the lock screen is probably coming in iOS in a few months, since it's adding that sort of thing for apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this context, I believe the widget would display the weather directly onto the home screen, rather than having to run the weather app. Think gadgets in Vista/Win7
Re: (Score:2)
The judges get to see *actual* devices... (Score:5, Informative)
When the judge made his decision, he had a powered-up iPad and a powered-up Galaxy tab in front of him, so he could see for himself whether they were similar - at least according to the BBC. If he thinks Samsung is in the wrong after playing with a physical working device, what does it matter if one image shows the aspect ratio incorrectly ? (all of the other images in the brief clearly showed the different aspect ratios).
Oh, it makes good link-bait ? You don't say!
Simon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The judges get to see *actual* devices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just like being a programmer doesn't mean you can add 2+2. It's pretty likely, though. [resists temptation to except Visual Basic programmers. Oh darn.]
Come on! The guy (woman, whatever...) spends his entire life meticulously examining statements for factual and legal accuracy. (S)he's the ninja of subtle-but-important-technicalities, and you're seriously trying to say he can't tell the difference between the two ? It's blatantly obvious they're different in *all-but-one* of the photos in the submitte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you'd be amazed at the ability of judges and politicians to churn out opinions about things they never saw
Really ? Churning out opinions you say ? Amazing...
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer for a multinational company. My wife is, though. Contrary to popular opinion, lawyers don't all have to take "Evil 101", followed by "Mental manipulation for graduates 101"...
As for the judge not having the device available. If the judge sees fit to want the devices around while (s)he renders judgement, that device is going to be there. Ain't no lawyer going to argue that with the judge. Not a chance in hell. Of course, if the judge has already figured out (by, you know, picking them up and
Re: (Score:3)
Sueing others for being copycats... (Score:4, Interesting)
So they are saying they've "innovated" the mobile device sector for inventing handhelds with rounded corners and big screens. Well, how does that hold up to their first iPhone looking strikingly similar [engadget.com] to Nokia's MID (at that time already being their third generation handheld none the less!)?
Apple is not that innovative, they just have better marketing - which they now can leverage for sueing their competition (I'm sure every judge has heard of the iPhone, I doubt the same is true for Nokia's Maemo devices)
Re: (Score:3)
Right. The most significant difference between the Nokia MID and the iPhone is just marketing. And people think the Apple kool-aid is potent.
Re: (Score:3)
have you actually used a nokia mid/n900? it works much better than iphone.
Re:Sueing others for being copycats... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What happened: Minidisc failed to ever really gain any foothold. Slow acceptance of MP3 on portable and other devices leading to a world largely void of Sony digital players. Conflicting goals from being a media company and a hardware company. Expiration of Trinitron patent compounded by introduction of LCD and plasma TVs and market dilution with the introduction of a new host of competitors, allowing them to lose their well-earned perception of providing superior picture quality. Homogenization of DVD
The apps screen is a blatant ripoff (Score:2, Interesting)
Samsung went to some lengths to make the grid view look more like iOS. But really, it's a grid of rounded icons. Big. Freaking. Deal.
HEY APPLE, some users might appreciate it if you started ripping off some Android design elements. Like widgets. But hey glad to see you've at least gotten around to copying the notification area, complete with the whole swipe gesture and all.
Re: (Score:3)
Adding a background to icons is great lengths?
Community Designs need another test (Score:4, Interesting)
These so-called Community Designs (I'm an ugly American, what do I know) need another stringent test in order to be considered a reasonable restriction on the market: Did the tools and technology to implement a design already exist, such that anyone could have readily "invented" the same design, or did the design require the initial invention of tools and technology necessary to implement the design itself, in a fashion similar to the work of Charles Babbage?
Apple's designs don't pass that test, do they?
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... we're talking about design patents here, so they're not supposed to require the invention of any tools or technology—so much so that if they have a functional purpose, they're prima facie invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
If the GGP was implying that no one could have built something like the iPad prior to when Apple built it because of some manufacturing limitations, that's a pretty laughable assertion. Other than the thickness (and possibly the resolution), there's basically no part of the iPad's outward appearance that would not have been possible several years earlier. After all, the iPhone predated it by three years, and it was very similar in its outward design.
The reason other companies didn't build devices that loo
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine how many patents science fiction writers would hold for fanciful devices, if squatting on IP had been their goal rather than entertaining and stimulating? That's a corollary of what I meant to say, I guess: why should you hold a patent on something neither you nor anyone else can implement at that moment? Further, if the design is so readily implemented with already existing tools and materials, such that independent innovation is likely, then isn't it in fact "obvious" and not worthy of a
What is the world coming to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Apple becoming Microsoft?
Re:What is the world coming to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No apple is just terrified of the same thing happening to them in their new markets as what happened with PCs vs Macs. I'd be afraid of superior cheaper products as well if I was them. Rather than innovate and try to stay ahead of the competition they'd rather throw lawyers at the problem.
Funny thing is, it's going to happen one way or another, the only uncertainty is whether the dominant OS will run Windows or Linux. It seems Apple would rather have history repeat itself.
Re: (Score:3)
woo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
And anybody who thinks that the current spate of "black slab" touchscreen tablets and phones were original creations and not derivative in any way from the iPad/iPhone has a bigger reality distortion field than Steve Jobs. Whether it makes sense for the courts to try and draw the line here is another matter - there doesnt seem to be much evidence of people going out to buy an iPad and coming home with a Galaxy.
Also, anybody who thinks that re-sizing two images out of dozens (when the sizes of the devices are given accurately elsewhere and the claims dont even hinge on size) - or showing a screen one click away from the homescreen - will get Apple's case thrown out should go and read Groklaw to see how much piss can be extracted from a court without repercussions.
Finally (note to the editors) anybody who describes merely re-sizing an image as "Photoshopping" is in no position to lecture people about overstating their claim.
NB: Lion Server is a joke, 100% mark up to get Lion on physical media is a ripoff, I'm not ready to give up my DVD drive just yet, and I'd like to be able to upgrade my own hard drive please. So don't call me a fanboi.
Who does Apple think they are? (Score:4, Funny)
The Clear Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's old-hat at doctoring photos (Score:3)
They did it for their iPad Star-Trek ads: http://i.imgur.com/huWri.jpg [imgur.com]
They probably figure if it's subtle enough, they can get away with it, but most people won't notice.
"Photoshopping" (Score:4, Funny)
If you can't figure out how to scale a photo without Photoshop, you truly are ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Apple is too rabidly hating the GPL to use Gimp :p
Re: (Score:3)
Preview.
Case should be dismissed... (Score:3)
This case should be dismissed with prejudice. Apple is fabricating and/or tampering with evidence in order to get a judgment in their favor, how can any of their evidence be trusted now? Not only should the case be dismissed, but Apple should be forced to pay for Samsungs legal fees and time as well a the court costs, and if there's any precedence, they should have to pay a hefty fine. And by hefty, I'm talking in the millions of dollars. Something that will hurt. If any of this evidence was produced by someone who was under oath, they should be up on charges, and not just Contempt of Court. There is absolutely no excuse that would justify something like this.
Of course, this is America. Nothing, other than the evidence maybe being thrown out. Hell no. Nothing will happen to the Cooperate Overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, because of Steve Jobs, the worms are 3mm thinner than typical worms.