Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Iphone Patents The Courts Apple

More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung 345

Posted by timothy
from the artist's-conception dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Photoshopped Evidence In Apple v. Samsung

Comments Filter:
  • Dear Apple (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kagetsuki (1620613) on Friday August 19, 2011 @10:59PM (#37150390)

    It is a flat screen with icons. No, you didn't think it up first. Now sit back down.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jo42 (227475)

      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)

        by sjames (1099) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @02:22AM (#37151126) Homepage

        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.

        • by Z00L00K (682162)

          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.

        • by dimeglio (456244)

          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

      • I'm pretty sure Palm made a lot of money with a flat device that had icons in rows. Take a look at the images on the right hand side of this page [wikimedia.org]. Palm was using that look right back in 1996, and was making a lot of money until smartphones started to replace PDAs. The iPhone is an incremental change from the Palm (multitouch, no graffiti-entry space) and the iPad is an incremental change from that.
      • by erroneus (253617)

        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

      • by myurr (468709)

        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

    • by elsurexiste (1758620) on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:29PM (#37150526) Journal

      That's right. My Windows 95 desktop was full of icons well before the iPhone arrived.

    • by syousef (465911) on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:41PM (#37150596) Journal

      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.

    • by mysidia (191772) * on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:52AM (#37150884)

      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>

    • 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...

  • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:05PM (#37150426)

      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.

      • 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.

        • by mysidia (191772) * on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:58AM (#37150914)

          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).

          • 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.

            • by mysidia (191772) *

              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

        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          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.

        • If all that they'd changed was the size, you might have a point, but they also changed the aspect ratio, and the orientation of default UI, and replaced the standard home screen with one that looked like iOS.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dave420 (699308)
      It's not just about scale - that, as you say, is forgiveable - it's about aspect ratio. They made the Samsungs look more like the Apples by squashing their dimensions differently, changing their shape in the process. That isn't exactly cool, as I'm sure you would agree.
    • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:07PM (#37150434) Journal

      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.

    • by itzdandy (183397)

      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.

      • 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.

        • by Jmc23 (2353706)
          Except that picture wasn't submitted by apple, it was made by the site to illustrate what the think apple may have submitted. What we really need is an actual copy of exactly what apple is claiming and what photos they submitted, are they claiming icons? phone shaped? Similar because it can make phone calls?
    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      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!

    • by cpotoso (606303)
      In add... lying (photoshopped image) is OK. In a lawsuit.... I do not think so. Apple should get their asses whacked.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      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...

    • by sjames (1099)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:04PM (#37150422)

    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.

    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:06AM (#37150694)

      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.

      • by rve (4436) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:55AM (#37150894)

        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)

        by tokul (682258)

        That's an approved Samsung screenshot.

        Apple should sue T-Mobile. It is not approved Samsung screenshot. It is approved screenshot of hardware sold by T-Mobile.

    • 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.

    • by jomama717 (779243)
      I'm no fanboi, but I have a work iPhone and it had a full featured weather "widget" out of the box, unless I'm mis-interpreting your definition of "widget".
      • by sirsnork (530512)

        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

    • Hey if it encourages iPhone users to think they can switch easily, I say go for it!
  • by Space cowboy (13680) on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:12PM (#37150458) Journal

    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)

      by siddesu (698447)
      Confirmation bias [wikimedia.org].
    • by houghi (78078)

      what does it matter if one image shows the aspect ratio incorrectly

      It matters because it could be seen as falsifying evidence.
      That could be important, because the case could be thrown out because it contained that false information, rather then one party having more rights then the other.
      Judges also do not really like to be lied to and even less like to have people wasting their time.

      It would be nice if they would not stop there, but ask Apple to pay a fine for giving false information and wasting people ti

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:13PM (#37150460)

    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)

    • by Phleg (523632)

      Right. The most significant difference between the Nokia MID and the iPhone is just marketing. And people think the Apple kool-aid is potent.

    • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @01:51AM (#37151070)
      I'm always reminded of the Sony Clie TH55 [lowprice.ca] from 2004. It had WiFi, an SD slot, a camera... it always drove me nuts how they simply refused to harness all the potential of that hardware. Sony, you were Apple 20 years ago, and now look at you. What happened?
      • by adolf (21054)

        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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • by arose (644256)

      Samsung went to some lengths to make the grid view look more like iOS.

      Adding a background to icons is great lengths?

  • by macraig (621737) <mark...a...craig@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 19, 2011 @11:47PM (#37150614)

    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?

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      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.

  • Is Apple becoming Microsoft?

    • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:29AM (#37150794)
      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.
      • by Flipao (903929)

        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.

  • woo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991) <.nomadicworld. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:30AM (#37150798) Homepage
    Finally an objective test to see if you're an Apple fanboi. If you think there is nothing wrong with skewing the aspect ration in a court filing, you're a fanboi, period.
    • Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @05:13AM (#37151652)

      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.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @12:41AM (#37150846)
    Facebook?
  • The Clear Reason (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Iconoclasism (1660709) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @01:47AM (#37151062)
    Apple just didn't feel that the evidence that it was submitting against Samsung was pretty enough; it really required photoshopping to be acceptable.
  • by squidinkcalligraphy (558677) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @01:52AM (#37151074)

    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.

  • by Trillan (597339) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @02:02AM (#37151094) Homepage Journal

    If you can't figure out how to scale a photo without Photoshop, you truly are ignorant.

  • by bjwest (14070) on Saturday August 20, 2011 @06:31AM (#37151864)

    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.

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke

Working...