Apple Accused of Using Doctored Evidence in Samsung Court Case
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
As someone on Phonescoop had said, they just need to stop all this suing and counter-suing all together. Ford never sued Toyota, GMC, Crystler, Chevy, or whatever else for copying what would have been and was the only automobile. It was a flatter to them to have copies of their design, and that's how others should see this.
What is boils down to is monopolies, and that's what patents such as these encourage. I can understand a patent on the OS, the Apple Brand, and so on; but to actual design of a tablet to prevent others from improving on? That's pure greedy monopolization of a market and impeding of progress through competition.
What is boils down to is monopolies, and that's what patents such as these encourage. I can understand a patent on the OS, the Apple Brand, and so on; but to actual design of a tablet to prevent others from improving on? That's pure greedy monopolization of a market and impeding of progress through competition.
I think I'll just leave this here....
Apple, reinventing old technology with a shiny coat of paint since 1956.
Apple tries to sue for app store, and now something looks remotely similar?
I thought you could only sue for using stolen code?
Why isn't Apple going after Iphone knock-offs?
Apple, reinventing old technology with a shiny coat of paint since 1956.
Apple tries to sue for app store, and now something looks remotely similar?
I thought you could only sue for using stolen code?
Why isn't Apple going after Iphone knock-offs?
Oh god if they sued for all apple knock off's china will go in huge debtBraedan said:I think I'll just leave this here....
Apple, reinventing old technology with a shiny coat of paint since 1956.
Apple tries to sue for app store, and now something looks remotely similar?
I thought you could only sue for using stolen code?
Why isn't Apple going after Iphone knock-offs?
The closer you look at Apple the uglier it gets. Thay make Microsoft look warm and fuzzy to be honest. People assumed they were "good" for years because they were the underdogs. We love our underdogs don't we? As they have become dominant in specific market segments they look a lot less friendly and more corporate.Kalezian said:
An enlarged iPod touch! PFFT who are you kidding! Completely different! For seriouses!gabe12301 said:
SEE!?!?!? It isn't an enlarged iPod touch, it is FOUR IPOD TOUCHES!!!!!
Gee, this Samsung Galaxy Tab looks more like a Motorola XOOM, and especially with that 10.1 inch and 1280x800 screen. Why the fuck did Apple think it's copying their piece of crap HD iPod Touch iPad? That also annoys me: the iPad is running a HD version of the iOS, whilst the Android tablets such as the Galaxy Tab run an altogether completely different build of Android. The latest mobile phone Android build is 2.3 "Gingerbread" and the latest one for tablets is 3.1 "Honeycomb"...
The iPad's screen is smaller and its resolution is 1280x720.
And also, the Android 3 tablets are running on 1280x800 to allow for a 80-pixel dock at the bottom of the screen when using apps that are not on full screen mode, for example when watching a 16:9 HD video.
The iPad's screen is smaller and its resolution is 1280x720.
And also, the Android 3 tablets are running on 1280x800 to allow for a 80-pixel dock at the bottom of the screen when using apps that are not on full screen mode, for example when watching a 16:9 HD video.
I understand Apple being sue happy. After all, if they get an injunction, whatever the result of the case actually is they kept competition away from the market for a few months. The way the tech world works, that can be enough for a product to become obsolete by the time it hits the stores.
What I can't believe is they would actually try to tamper with evidence. As if they expected the guys on the other side not to analyze every scrap they brought to court searching for reasons to throw it out. That is incredibly dumb. Hope they get their asses handed to them for that, and the case thrown out.
What I can't believe is they would actually try to tamper with evidence. As if they expected the guys on the other side not to analyze every scrap they brought to court searching for reasons to throw it out. That is incredibly dumb. Hope they get their asses handed to them for that, and the case thrown out.
Its a shame really. I actually quite like apple products and their design aesthetics are really good, but all their tech is overpriced and none of it really screams innovation like they would love to have you believe. Considering that the tablet has been around for a long time, its a bit rich of apple to claim that its a totally original concept. Also how different can you really make a tablet look? They are all essentially a hand held screen with minimal physical controls. There are only so many ways you can do one differently.
As an additional clarification to Andy's write-up, the photo that Apple used in the court evidence documentation:
1) Showed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as having an almost 4:3 aspect ratio, which is equal to the iPad's. All Android Honeycomb tablets currently on the market at the time of this injunction use 16:9 aspect ratio.
2) The image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not display a Samsung logo, which is prominent on the front and rear of the publicly released model. Apple only places its logo on the back of their publicly released models.
3) The image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 shows a beta version of the Android Honeycomb app drawer screen. The app drawer in the released product is (slightly) different from the one displayed, and is also the same on all Honeycomb tablets on the market at the time of this injunction. Also, this IS NOT the actual homescreen of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, nor any Honeycomb tablet, as Apple is attesting in the injunction.
The only thing Apple has on Samsung is the general look and feel of the device itself, as it uses many of the same components as the iPad. This is quite obvious given that, until recently, Samsung produced the majority of the components for the iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch.
Listen to episode 441 of This American Life, patent trolling needs to stop.
1) Showed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as having an almost 4:3 aspect ratio, which is equal to the iPad's. All Android Honeycomb tablets currently on the market at the time of this injunction use 16:9 aspect ratio.
2) The image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not display a Samsung logo, which is prominent on the front and rear of the publicly released model. Apple only places its logo on the back of their publicly released models.
3) The image of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 shows a beta version of the Android Honeycomb app drawer screen. The app drawer in the released product is (slightly) different from the one displayed, and is also the same on all Honeycomb tablets on the market at the time of this injunction. Also, this IS NOT the actual homescreen of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, nor any Honeycomb tablet, as Apple is attesting in the injunction.
The only thing Apple has on Samsung is the general look and feel of the device itself, as it uses many of the same components as the iPad. This is quite obvious given that, until recently, Samsung produced the majority of the components for the iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch.
Listen to episode 441 of This American Life, patent trolling needs to stop.
Or just think they can sell the image.Thunderhorse31 said:
After all, appearing to invent it, especially in a court of law, is probably more important to them than actually inventing something.