“According to a report from Dutch publication Webwereld (via Computerworld), Apple has once again submitted doctored evidence related to their claims of design patent-related infringement by Samsung, this time to a court in Netherlands,” Jordan Kahn reports for 9to5Mac.
“This further supports claims by Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons (Samsung’s lawyer) that Apple has been ‘manipulating visual evidence, making Samsung’s devices appear more similar to Apple’s,'” Kahn reports. “If you aren’t up to speed with the legal disputes between Apple and Samsung in Europe… a court in Germany already granted a preliminary injunction halting sales of Samsung’s Galaxy tab 10.1 tablet in the EU (which has been since lifted pending an appeal). We already heard about Apple manipulating images in that case related to the iPad and Galaxy tab. This time, however, the report claims Apple doctored images of the Samsung Galaxy S smartphone in comparison to the iPhone 3G.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Lynn Weiler” and “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple seeks extensive ban on all Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets in EU – August 18, 2011
One of Apple’s evidence images in Samsung tablet case reportedly distorted by 8% – August 15, 2011
Must have used the PC version of Adobe Photoshop to do the doctoring. Adobe, the company that brought you Flash, where the cure is worse than dying.
This is not doctoring.
The lawsuit about similarities between devices. Similarity is topological concept, which meant it is best estimated when compared objects are on picture of the same size.
Actual size (which differs insignificantly) is not related to topology of design, so Apple scaled up their iPhone to the size of Galaxy. Samsung’s photos were not touched.
http://twitpic.com/68lujd
Dear Apple, please use a few extra pennies, and poach away some lawyers from MS. In almost every case, MS steamrolls, Apple stutters even from “decidedly” stronger positions.
I just did a flash update for Firefox on my work PC yesterday and the damn update installed Chrome. No warning, no choice to not install Chrome.
Chrome, Adobe Air, etc. They are all just trying to find a new way to screw up my Flash-free Mac. I do not appreciate the developers who attempt to force me to install these types of components in order to run their software.
I don’t understand how stuff like this happens with big companies. It seems like a silly mistake/thing to do. I would love to know if it was done on purpose.
Don’t believe everything that’s said.
O’donell says she was sexually harassed even though the world can see the vidoe clip for them selves…
Anyway, the image were not “doctored” “first time”, and there is no evidence that these were doctored this time.
As an explanation, it is easy to see that these lawsuits drag from late winder/early spring, so these documents were copied and pasted in countless versions of legal papers in tens countries around the world. This part was not updated.
Doctored is a *very* strong and highly misleading term for what actually occurred. The fact is, Samsung is desperate and grasping at straws.
What if the images were given to Apple already doctored by Samsung? If Apple used provided images that were already listed in the metadata as 100% along both dimensions, they are blameless. Samsung could have easily re-saved the files after altering the images for their own purposes.
If Apple did this, they deserve to have their hands slapped; but if it can’t be proven, then Samsung’s just blowing smoke. I think Apple would be far more likely to prefer placing real, physical devices in front of any judge or any panel and letting them draw their conclusions from the real thing. Samsung is hanging so far over the cliff that they are grasping at any technicality straw to try and save themselves. A simple glance reveals how much they copied, and they deserve to fall to the axe for it.
Yes, Samsung is just trying to delay the execution and judgement as long as they can. Every day delayed is a few more copied tablets that are sold and not returned to Samsung.
The MacWorld article points out that Apple stated in the text that the Galaxy S has “some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions.” So its not like they were trying to hide it.
You do not need photos, the Apple lawyers show their iPhones to the judge then the Samsung lawyers show their Galaxy…wait no that won’t work, they have iPhones also!
Having experienced losses in the courtroom, Samsung is fighting Apple in media, via PR. It’s the oldest trick in the book: discredit the evidence presented. Predictably, Computerworld, Gizmodo & other “news sites” have naively or willingly chosen to fall for this hogwash. The truth will out eventually.
Exactly! They are using hired guns/ tech blogs to discredit Apple in the media. I am forever boycotting ALL Samsung products, as should anyone with ethics.
Same here! No more S(h)amsung for me, too. I cannot patronize an unethical, IP-thieving company.
“Samsung is fighting Apple in media, via PR. It’s the oldest trick in the book: discredit the evidence presented.”
It also comes off as THE LAMEST trick in the book. The only people who give a rat’s are the TechTard journalists who need something/anything remotely sensational to sell their rags in August, well known to be the more boring month of the year.
August is ALWAYS the month of deadly stoooopid journalism. The TechTard journalists phone it in; They go on vacation; This is the best crap in the In Box; The Editors publish it; We laugh as we lounge on the beach. 😆
Are all you iFake fans so drunk off CrApple’s RDF and FUD’d Apple Juice that you all make lite of “Evidence Tampering”? It’s the Samsung attorney that is accusing Apple submitting graphically modified evidence and claiming Apple knowing tried to misrepresent similarities that relate more to being of the same form factor than being copies.
Especially in lite of Samsung releasing this Q1 (original released in 2006) model that directly relates to subsequent Galaxy Tab Tablet PC’s before iPad was even out:
As for Galaxy SII, photoshop’d and manipulated evidence again proves Apple will go to great lengths to attempt to halt the sales of it’s greatest competition because they’re scared to death that Samsung is the new Apple of innovation and thanks to their lame lawsuits and evidence tampering now, the whole World will soon know it.
Let me take you back to the original iPhone. Which Apple’s iPhone is just a clone of only recently after iPhone 4 was released:
They had the single round physical button (not a dual button shuttle control) before Apple introduced on original iphone over a year later. Gesture based Touchscreen Multimedia Smartphone w/ dual camera’s (front for video chat), metal bezel, icons on a desktop, rounded corners, etc out 4 years before iPhone4!
I’m convinced all you Apple iFakes need to go to CrAppleholics Anonymous to get sobered up!
Oh my.
Something about your first link struck me as rather odd, so I backed the URL up to mblast.com. What I found there is creepy to say the least. I’ll let mBLAST speak for itself:
About mBLAST
mBLAST delivers robust, fully-integrated web-based solutions to enable marketing/PR professionals and market influencers to exchange information and work together
…
About Us
Influence your market. Market your influence.®
Marketing and PR has never been harder than right now. The number of Influencers (reporters, analysts, bloggers, and publishers) that marketing and PR professionals need to track and influence is unprecedented—and there are no signs that things are slowing down. Similarly, the sheer breadth and depth of outlets for marketing content—aided by the growth of blogs, search engines, syndication, and social media—means it’s almost impossible to know where your content is, and even harder to control it once it’s “out there.”
In otherwords, bBLAST is a platform for marketers, PR propagandists, and other special interests to socially engineer the public and manipulate its collective opinion by putting reporters, analysts, bloggers, and publishers under their influence.
Aww… Doesn’t that just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?
What they are NOT is an image host, and this begs the question, why are you linking to an image on their servers? Infact, why would that image even be ON their servers in the first place?
Answer: You are using mBLAST exactly as intended. You’re a PR propagandist employed by Samsung, and your comment is part of its effort to socially engineer the public into turning their sentiments against Apple. You complete piece of shit.
MDN is one of the blogs tracked by mBLAST, so that’s why you hit it with your (to you, hopefully)manipulative comment. And speaking of your comment:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, Apple is scared to death by Samsung’s innovation. If by “innovation” you mean “cloning of the iPad and iPhone so shamelessly that it’s actually illegal”, and by “scared to death” you mean “being forced to open a can of whoop-ass”.
I don’t know where you dragged that picture from, because I can’t find a model of Samsung Q1 that looks like it(apologies for linking to Google): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22samsung+q1%22&hl=en&prmd=ivnsr&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QLhOTr62G5ScgQenvL2QBw&ved=0CEoQsAQ
If I had to guess, I’d say your picture is ironically itself doctored. But perhaps it’s an early concept render or something. Either way, I don’t trust anything coming from a professional liar(although you come off as more of an amatuer. Samsung should cut your pay). The second picture? I can’t even figure out what it is or what you’re trying to say about it. Apple’s original iPhone is a clone of the iPhone after the iPhone 4 was released? You’re incoherent.
If Samsung’s accusations of Apple doctoring the evidence were solid, then they wouldn’t need to go to the trouble of becoming a client of mBLAST and having their PR monkeys virally slam Apple on popular blogs in a bid to influence the public against Cupertino. The court finding that Apple doctored evidence would take care of that, for free, and do a vastly more effective job of it. Samsung have a precarious case. And know it.
Your propaganda is fail. Now kindly GTFO.
Oh my.
Something about your first link struck me as rather odd, so I backed the URL up to mblast.com. What I found there is creepy to say the least. I’ll let mBLAST speak for itself:
About mBLAST
mBLAST delivers robust, fully-integrated web-based solutions to enable marketing/PR professionals and market influencers to exchange information and work together
…
About Us
Influence your market. Market your influence.®
Marketing and PR has never been harder than right now. The number of Influencers (reporters, analysts, bloggers, and publishers) that marketing and PR professionals need to track and influence is unprecedented—and there are no signs that things are slowing down. Similarly, the sheer breadth and depth of outlets for marketing content—aided by the growth of blogs, search engines, syndication, and social media—means it’s almost impossible to know where your content is, and even harder to control it once it’s “out there.”
In otherwords, bBLAST is a platform for marketers, PR propagandists, and other special interests to socially engineer the public and manipulate its collective opinion by putting reporters, analysts, bloggers, and publishers under their influence.
Aww… Doesn’t that just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?
What they are NOT is an image host, and this begs the question, why are you linking to an image on their servers? Infact, why would that image even be ON their servers in the first place?
Answer: You are using mBLAST exactly as intended. You’re a PR propagandist employed by Samsung, and your comment is part of its effort to socially engineer the public into turning their sentiments against Apple. You complete piece of shit.
MDN is one of the blogs tracked by mBLAST, so that’s why you hit it with your (to you, hopefully)manipulative comment. And speaking of your comment:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, Apple is scared to death by Samsung’s innovation. If by “innovation” you mean “cloning of the iPad and iPhone so shamelessly that it’s actually illegal”, and by “scared to death” you mean “being forced to open a can of whoop-ass”.
I don’t know where you dragged that picture from, because I can’t find a model of Samsung Q1 that looks like it(apologies for linking to Google): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22samsung+q1%22&hl=en&prmd=ivnsr&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QLhOTr62G5ScgQenvL2QBw&ved=0CEoQsAQ
If I had to guess, I’d say your picture is ironically itself doctored. But perhaps it’s an early concept render or something. Either way, I don’t trust anything coming from a professional liar(although you come off as more of an amatuer. Samsung should cut your pay). The second picture? I can’t even figure out what it is or what you’re trying to say about it. Apple’s original iPhone is a clone of the iPhone after the iPhone 4 was released? Huh? You’re incoherent.
If Samsung’s accusations of Apple doctoring the evidence were solid, then they wouldn’t need to go to the trouble of becoming a client of mBLAST and having their PR monkeys virally slam Apple on popular blogs in a bid to influence the public against Cupertino. The court finding that Apple doctored evidence would take care of that, for free, and do a vastly more effective job of it. Samsung must have a precarious case. And know it.
Your propaganda is fail. Now kindly GTFO.
(P.S. My internet connection is screwy today, this had better not doublepost)
this had better not doublepost
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-
Can somebody delete this one?
Hah, I just did a search for “61436.ny1.jpg”.
I wonder if it’s all the handy work of “Not iFake Fan” or if the Samsung PR monkeys take turns with this schtick?
(apologies for linking to Google again. If only someone would break their search monopoly… HINTFORAPPLEHINTHINT…)
Most amusing and clueless bunch — the Apple haters…
In order to get this discussion on the proper track, some facts need to be presented:
1. The one image of Samsung Tab that was distorted (proportions altered to more closely resemble iPad) was obtained from Samsung.de (Samsung’s German site). This is clearly stated in the 44-page court document (in German). In addition to that one image, Apple provided some 20 more images, plus images of other competitors (Toshiba, Acer, Motorola, etc). They also provided some internal Samsung PowerPoints, financial reports from both companies, printouts of articles from various web sites (ZDNet, WSJ, NYTimes, TechCrunch, etc), and a lot of other stuff. All in all, over 70 pages of filings.
So, to make this perfectly clear: the image Apple presented was ALREADY doctored (presumably, by Samsung themselves!).
As for the image of the Galaxy phone, it was NOT doctored. It was sized to fit on the page. It was also one of dozens of images of that phone, the iPhone, as well as other competitors, plus other documents.
A good clue to everyone that this is sensationalistic writing would have been the source: webwereld.nl (the notorious Dutch tech site).
Do you know where I can view/download this document of 70 pages?
I don’t know German, but page 9 has a single reference to http://www.samsung.de referring to Appendix 7 (according to the translator). How do we know which pictures were taken by Apple and which were taken from samsung.de? What if Apple took the picture from samsung.de and modified to resemble the iPad? The document doesn’t tell exactly where the picture was taken from other than some broad samsung.de. I can easily take an ipad picture from apple.com and morph it into the Galaxy Tab dimension. Does that mean it was already doctored by apple? I don’t know how we can conclude that Samsung doctored the picture. Can you please show where in that document we can make that conclusion?
The journalistic profession has been in serious decline over the past few years (witness phone hacking scandal in London). We used to be able to trust reporting of professional journalists and expect truth, facts and complete information. Not so anymore.
This story would be analogous to a Hollywood tabloid story printing a juicy article, with pictures, of Clint Eastwood with a teenage girl, with a headline “Dirty Harry likes ’em young!” (or something similarly juicy). The article would then go on about his two marriages and many kids, his dirty old mind, which would quickly fire up the net with discussions about Clint the Pedofile. Until someone actually bothers to check who the girl was and finds out that it was his granddaughter Graylen (daughter of his son, Kyle), whom he took out for icecream after her graduation from middle school.
This example was completely fabricated (except for the names of people) and was only for illustration purposes. The Dutch stories about Apple’s suits are just as bad, though, putting massive spin on a snipped of information completely out of context.
But by now, we should be used to this…
Predrag is completely correct. “Journalism” pretty much today consists of “reporters” sitting in an office taking information off of faxes, emails, etc. without bothering to do any fact checks. It’s a race to see who can get it out first, accuracy be damned. If you release the same story topic with more accuracy but you’re the second to publish, no one reads you.
The truly sad thing is that most of these facts which go unchecked are very, very easily checked via simple internet searches. If nothing else, a search will raise doubt as to whether a claimed fact is true or not, which (one would think) would lead the reporter to dig more.
But alas, no. First to publish is the winner, and to the victor goes the spoils.
People have no idea how patent lawyers litigate or think. Scale has nothing to do with infringement. The resized images show that Samsung has copied the iPhone/iPad. If Samsung were to make a 4 foot high iPhone wannabe it would still be infringing. Just as if someone made a 200 foot high Mickey Mouse doll using a 1 foot high original as the basis for copying. Apple’s lawyers aren’t stupid. Again, scale is irrelevant. Apple is trying to show that once you resize the offending copy down to the same size you can see that it’s a near exact copy of the look and feel. C’mon people. Do you really think Apple’s lawyers could be this incompent?
“C’mon people. Do you really think Apple’s lawyers could be this incompent?”
No, but OTOH, NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people.
There are smart lawyers, there are worthless lawyers. Either way, knowing how to make perfect 1:1 photocopies of computer hardware is not on their resumé. This kind of technical blunder is de rigor in modern court proceedings. BFD. Major yawn factor.
As has been FREQUENTLY pointed out by many around the net: Just HAND the judge and jury THE HARDWARE ITSELF! Tada. Problem solved. (0_o)
Frack off Samsung. It’s time for your reckoning. BWAHAHAHA!
lol right as if Apple is that desperate and stupid.
OH DARN! Some legal geek didn’t know how to make a 1:1, 180º angle copy photo print. Mistrial! 😆
This is yet-another move illustrating Samsung Desperation.
Samsung: You are so screwed.
As always, fanboyz rush to make up some stupid BS on how it wasn’t Apple’s fault.
Geeeez. You clowns STILL don’t GET IT?!?!?
It’s RIGHT in front of your eyes, and yet you STILL dismiss it!, and are in total denial
(sigh)
It’s really not even worth the effort…