One of Apple’s evidence images in Samsung tablet case reportedly distorted by 8%

“Apple and its lawyers have, perhaps inadvertently, misled the judge of a Düsseldorf court by filing flawed evidence of the similarity between the iPad 2 and Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets based on an inaccurate picture, an investigation by, a Dutch IDG publication, has found,” Andreas Udo de Haes reports for Computerworld.

“At least one of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pictures that Apple provided as evidence in the German case is either wrong or manipulated,” Udo de Haes reports. “The picture of the alleged Galaxy Tab provided by Apple is cropped and its aspect ratio is distorted. According to Samsung, the Tab measures 256.7 x 175.3 millimeters, which translates to an aspect ratio of 1.46. The Tab pictured in the complaint however has an aspect ratio of 1.36. The bottom is about 8% wider than the actual one.”

Udo de Haes reports, “As a result, the aspect ratio of the purported Tab is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the iPad 2, which is 1.30… Florian Müller, a German intellectual property consultant… doubts that Apple’s lawyers attempted to mislead the court. Müller argues the picture in the German complaint could be of a pre-release prototype, which showed up during discovery procedures in Apple’s case against Samsung in the U.S. last April.”

Read more in the full article, which includes comparison images, here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dow C.” for the heads up.]


  1. A serious screw-up; Apple should reprimand the lawyer/law firm. This was an unacceptable gaffe, Apple’s hard earned honest reputation/brand can do without.

    1. If the offending photograph was provided to Apple as part of discovery then they can hardly be faulted for not knowing of the error and for using it in their case.

      On the other hand, if Apple is at fault then their lawyers should be embarrassed and appropriately chastised.

      1. The photograph is not “distorted”, it is obviously picture of different device.

        See the thickness of “metallic” borders (which in Apple’s picture are thicker), and absence of Samsung’s logo.

  2. Wait. Isn’t this where MDN lobs endless insults at Apple for being patent trolls and litigation parasites and all the other hate they spew at every entity that ISN’T Apple for any foible or goof or stumble they make along their paths?

    1. It would be very helpful if you could be bothered to produce a few quotes and links from MDN’s past history as supporting facts to your argument (currently a strong suspect for trolling) to actually make it seem “justified”.

    2. Careful Justified, an honest observation will get you the troll of the day label. But you can bet that AAPL isn’t dumb enough to cheat so blatantly. They have the best lawyers money can buy. But somebody just got fired! AAPL doesn’t expect to win all it’s lawsuits just enough. They have a pretty substantial case here. But how dare you act as though MDN is biased in it’s coverage!!! Goodness!

      1. MDN can defend themselves better than any here.
        I’m just questioning your “honest observation will get you the troll of the day label” comment. Which honest observation are you referring to?
        Can you, for instance, show us an example where MDN has called an entity Patent Troll unjustifiably?
        Lodsys, i.e., doesn’t have a device/apps on the market, hasn’t produced any plans on developing one in the future, therefore, according to standard definition, they’re fair game for the label Patent Troll.

        On the other hand, Samsung has products in the market that aped Apple. They have filed lawsuits against each other on patent infringements and trade dress violations.
        Samsung, blatant copycats as they’re maybe, aren’t patent trolls.

        Or are you referring to the rest of “Justified’s” rhetoric, “and litigation parasites and all the other hate they spew at every entity that ISN’T Apple.”

        “Litigation parasite,” links, reference and context please.
        “Other hate,” that seems awfully like a subjective opinion. I always thought MDN is, at best, contemptuous of the “parasites”, unworthy of hate, really.

        Troll away.

          1. When you call someone a fanboy instead of address their arguments… you’ve lost the argument. In geek terms… It’s like calling someone a Nazi. You’ve just admitted you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  3. I’m sorry, but whether or not the image was manipulated, even with it’s more narrow size, the Galaxy Tab looks very much like an iPad. Throw in the blatantly ripped off OS from Google and you have a case.

  4. baloney hogwash

    Just like mueller states, these were documents gathered from samsung themselves during discovery. Of course the media will pick up on this tomorrow. CNBC will be all so happy to mislead again. Part of limiting the PPS for the monthly/ weekly options.

  5. 8% distortion is so minimal this should be a non-issue. And given that Apple included numerous other images for comparison, schematics and technical specification on pages and pages of evidence.

    The judge will probably stay the injunction until a ruling can be made. But it seems ridiculously unlikely that the decision hinges on this one image.

    This is hardly a major legal blunder. Tempest in a teacup.

    1. mr nut is correct a mere phototgraph can always be misleading . (heck i’m a photographer) but this story actally smacks of a more sinister note from the anti mac brigade if ever they fed the media !

  6. I would suggest to everyone here who understands German to go download the PDF and read it (if you have time for 44 pages). You will quickly see from the document that many pictures there were obtained from Samsung’s own marketing material (including this ‘distorted’ one). In addition, picture shows two devices, sitting on a white surface, in their original opened boxes, right next to each other. The slight difference in dimensions is quite obvious to everyone. Also, the document goes at great length to explain all other similarities between Samsung’s products and iOS products, and specifically, between the Tab and the iPad 2.

    The complaint wasn’t a two-page document with these two “doctored” pictures. It was a dense 44-page document with plenty of pictures, examples and descriptions.

    1. Agreed, I also posted this same thing on another site, but it seems that all the droids and google suck ups want to believe this untruth anyway.

      It’s a non story in terms of Apple misleading, the only real story is how Google and Android have these so called idiots that will push out false stories to get anything and everyone boasting on how bad Apple is, funny thing is an intelligent individual can see propaganda for what it is.

      As you stated all information was directly from Samsung, it says so in the brief, a story like this should be held up as why people should not get news from only one source and they need to further themselves by investigation of such story’s and calling them out whenever possible if they are misleading like this one.

      But do you expect anything else for the likes of Computerworld to be fair with an Apple related story…. Think about the link bait they put out and think, is Computerworld trustworthy about Apple information ever.

  7. Samsung reminds me of a musical instrument and electronics company, Behringer, during the 90’s. These guys officially set up shop in Switzerland, but were manufacturing in China, while many American brands still made their stuff in the US. Behringer was successfully sued by several musical equipment manufacturers (Mackie, Peavey, Rolland/Boss, DOD) for trade dress infringement, as they kept introducing devices (Mixers, rack effects, gutar pedals, speakers, amplifiers) that were practically identical to these American brands. The company continues to exist, having hired some designers, and is now making a reasonably uniquely designed equipment.

    I wonder if Samsung is ever going to hire some quality industrial designers and come up with their reasonably unique, original designs…

  8. While evidence needs to be pure, Samsung so blatantly ripped off everything they could from the iPad, this is a very minor detail, which makes it all the more questionable it was done intentionally. Why would you risk a solid case by intentionally tainting the evidence over something trivial? And if you wonder how it could be inadvertent, when you copy something with a camera, and are not absolutely dead-on parallel to the object plane, the picture will yield a different aspect ratio than the object.

    1. …Why would you risk a solid case by intentionally tainting the evidence over something trivial?”

      Apple made it a point to use images from Samsung’s own marketing material. The distorted proportions of the Tab appear to have been distorted in an effort by Samsung to make the Tab even more similar to the iPad to the uneducated user.

  9. Relax Apple haters.
    Their is very little info in the article.
    Where did the photo come from. Did Samsung provide it during discovery. What is Apple arguing relative to the photograph.
    Possible argument might be that the photo shows an early intent on the part of Samsung to do a design that mimics the iPad both in size and style, even if the dimensions of the production Galaxy were further changed. The argument would’t be-these are the current dimensions, but rather that from the beginning prototype that Samsung wanted to essentially duplicate the iPad in appearance.

    Time will tell.

    As the Bard says: Thingsi iare rarely what they seem!

    Undoubtedly both actual products will be presented to the judge as part of the proceeding.

    As the judge retires to chambers to write a a ruling and opinion, i can’t help but wonder what level of Angry Birds the judge will reach on the iPad.

    1. …Their is very little info in the article.”

      If you mean a 44-page document, than I agree, very little.

      Anyone who understands German will tell you what I already said earlier. Image is from Samsung’s own marketing, Apple is arguing appearance (and not specifically the size or dimensions), it’s all there.

      The image is completely irrelevant.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.