Apple accused of modifying image to gain edge in court case

Apple has been accused of ‘doctoring’ an image in order to damage Samsung’s defence of their Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. The injunction filed by Apple alleges that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 design is derivative of their iPad 2. Now, the Cupertino based company has been reported to have modified an image in order to show more of a similarity between the two devices. The FOSSPatents blog post on the topic can be read here, in order to give a further insight.

In the official court summons (which can be read here, though in German), page 28 displays an image. The image is of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 alongside the Apple iPad 2. Apple claims their ‘general impression’ is virtually identical. The downside to this defence is that the Galaxy Tab image has been doctored in order to give it more of a resemblance to the Apple tablet. The image shown has the Galaxy Tab 10.1 at an aspect ratio of 1.36 (the iPad aspect ratio is 1.30). A real Galaxy Tab 10.1 has an aspect ratio of 1.46. Samsung gave the product measurements as 256.7x175.3 mm. The image follows:

Arnout Groen of Klos Morel Vos & Schaap believes the mistake was deliberate, as he told Webwereld (English translation). Groen, who specializes in matters of intellectual property, had the following to say:

“This is a blunder. That in case a mistake is made on a form can hardly be a coincidence. There is someone very flown off the road in his desire to be right. The relationship of the alleged Tab are distinctly different so it looks more like the iPhone. How this faux affects the case of course depends on the discretion of the court. but a swipe of the German court seems at least in place. "

In civil proceedings the parties have a legal duty to evidence "fully and truthfully" to perform. This is true whether deliberately or accidentally incorrect evidence has been submitted, and as the court may commit significant consequences, explains Green. "In design cases concern the appearance of products, making it essentially correct about the correct and true information. This is especially true in an ex parte decision."

Florian Müller, a Munich-based consultant for intellectual property cases, believes the image could have major implications for the Apple case. Of course, it balances on how the judge sees the modified image of Samsung’s Android tablet. As a result of the controversy surrounding Apple’s submitted evidence, the injunction against Samsung has been suspended in all European Union countries, except for Germany.

Interestingly, one ZDNet comment states that the image of the Galaxy Tab also has a silver border. The Tab does not have this silver border, though the original iPad did. This has led to the user, ‘reklissrick’, suggesting Apple could have went as far as Photoshopping an image of Android onto an entirely different image. Of course, this theory is rather outlandish.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New USB 3.0 power delivery specification announced

Next Story

IE team sends Mozilla a cupcake to celebrate the launch of Firefox 6

58 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So Apple have falsified evidence, surely that in itself should carry some punishement, trying to manipulate the legals system in its favour... In a normal court, surely their credibility to give evidence would now mbe undermined affecting any future claims they may raise...?

Well I do know there are legal ramifications for libel...
There is no proof Apple did anything, saying the falsified evidence and try to manipulate the courts in their favor is a pretty bold claim...

Just saying, but you know, if they where going to try manipulating the court be falsifying images I think they would have done so with at least a couple more than just the one small picture in that 64 pages long document...

I can't wait for Apple Inc. to respond to this. This will malign the Apple brand very much, even if they win the case against Samsung.

FMH said,
I can't wait for Apple Inc. to respond to this. This will malign the Apple brand very much, even if they win the case against Samsung.

They will shove the blame onto someone else, i guarantee they knew about this and have an action plan ready for it. I hope they fined hard for it!

Beyond Godlike said,

They will shove the blame onto someone else, i guarantee they knew about this and have an action plan ready for it. I hope they fined hard for it!


I doubt they'll even get asked about it... It's one small picture at the top of one of the pages in a 64 pages long document... This is the definition of taking something out of context.

Wow, what a shady legal team... One can only hope (Though probably wishfully) that this isn't indicative of the whole company... :rolleys:

What a joke of a case. Apple is just grasping at whatever they can to try and stay on top. Luckily the rest of the consumer/business world isn't the same as tech, or else there would only be like 1 tire maker, because how dare anything else be circle. Same with clocks, couldn't have anything that also used numbers to tell time...

I'd just want to point out that this is one image taken from a document that is 64 pages long.
That document contain a lot of text and plenty of pictures, many of which are clearly normal photos and not standard marketing material as this, none of which seem to be distorted in the same way this is.
Just the page before this image there are photos of both the back and front of both devices, all of which are in their correct proportions.

It's not like this picture was the focus of the lawsuite, this was a small picture next to an iPad at the top of one page filled with text...

And here is the original document if anyone would happen to be interested in the whole picture http://www.scribd.com/doc/6199...de-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1

Leonick said,
I'd just want to point out that this is one image taken from a document that is 64 pages long.
That document contain a lot of text and plenty of pictures, many of which are clearly normal photos and not standard marketing material as this, none of which seem to be distorted in the same way this is.
Just the page before this image there are photos of both the back and front of both devices, all of which are in their correct proportions.

It's not like this picture was the focus of the lawsuite, this was a small picture next to an iPad at the top of one page filled with text...

And here is the original document if anyone would happen to be interested in the whole picture http://www.scribd.com/doc/6199...de-Prel-Inj-Galaxy-Tab-10-1

Seems less sinister after seeing that but still something that Apple needs to answer to.

Leonick said,
I'd just want to point out that this is one image taken from a document that is 64 pages long.

Doesn't matter. One falsified or incorrect document can invalidate an entire case.

Leonick said,
I'd just want to point out that this is one image taken from a document that is 64 pages long.

Which makes it easier to hide and defend themself because of naïve people like you.

Yeah it's "just" a photoshop, because there is no evidence to support their theory they had to make their own evidence.

No need to blame the court, they expected the evidence presented to be truthful and accurate. Now that the evidence has been proven otherwise the lifted the ban which is right. I expect apple to face some repercussions over this and a claim for damages from Samsung. Sounds like Jobsy and co are going to get a taste of their own medicine.

norseman said,
Not to mention they removed the Samsung logo, etc....

They have to remove the logo or Samsung could sue for Copyright Infringement.

norseman said,
Not to mention they removed the Samsung logo, etc....

They have to remove the logo or Samsung could sue for Copyright Infringement.

norseman said,
Not to mention they removed the Samsung logo, etc....

Actually, that's the only thing Apple didn't alter. The Samsung logo was removed from the front of the device when it went into production even though the commercial shows otherwise.

I'm glad that this ban was temporarily lifted, but I'm still concerned why the judge granted such a big blow to Samsung without looking over the details.

so much for hoping the injunction would force samsung to come out with something new and special and not just minor upgrades to every other device already on the market. how long till we see something that is actually impressive and not just another meh device.

ILikeTobacco said,
so much for hoping the injunction would force samsung to come out with something new and special and not just minor upgrades to every other device already on the market. how long till we see something that is actually impressive and not just another meh device.

you mean liek what apple did with the iphone 1,2,3,4,5 ipad 1,2

I have to say, the similarities between the two are very similar, especially at a first glance. Yesterday I was walking through a store and saw the Galaxy Tab. Initially I said "Oh, an iPad... I wonder why it's not with the rest of the Apple products." Then I saw that the cable was on the side and not the bottom (relative to the iPad) and realized what it actually was.

Tanshin said,
I have to say, the similarities between the two are very similar, especially at a first glance. Yesterday I was walking through a store and saw the Galaxy Tab. Initially I said "Oh, an iPad... I wonder why it's not with the rest of the Apple products." Then I saw that the cable was on the side and not the bottom (relative to the iPad) and realized what it actually was.

Yesterday i was walking through a store and saw the iPad, Initially I said "Oh, a Tablet, i wonder why it's not with the rest of the tablet products" then i saw it was not actually a tablet, but an iPad(Also communications device).

Since Apple is busy enough thinking their products are an entire product category of it's own i have a hard time believing why a tablet can be infringing, not to mention the fact that the same could be said with any rectangular shaped device with a monitor bigger than a phone but smaller than a laptop.

Tanshin said,
I have to say, the similarities between the two are very similar, especially at a first glance. Yesterday I was walking through a store and saw the Galaxy Tab. Initially I said "Oh, an iPad... I wonder why it's not with the rest of the Apple products." Then I saw that the cable was on the side and not the bottom (relative to the iPad) and realized what it actually was.

It's wonderful that you can't tell the difference between them. The basic facts stay true, though. The similarities are of rectangular shape, curved corners, and a screen.

Yeah, we should give Apple rights to be the only company to create tablets.

Tanshin said,
I have to say, the similarities between the two are very similar, especially at a first glance. Yesterday I was walking through a store and saw the Galaxy Tab. Initially I said "Oh, an iPad... I wonder why it's not with the rest of the Apple products." Then I saw that the cable was on the side and not the bottom (relative to the iPad) and realized what it actually was.

Really? The fact that it says SAMSUNG on the tab and that it's a different shape didnt give you a clue?

techbeck said,

Really? The fact that it says SAMSUNG on the tab and that it's a different shape didnt give you a clue?

I'm pretty sure the actual production model doesn't say SAMSUNG on it. The logo only appears on their marketing renders.

FISKER_Q said,

Yesterday i was walking through a store and saw the iPad, Initially I said "Oh, a Tablet, i wonder why it's not with the rest of the tablet products" then i saw it was not actually a tablet, but an iPad(Also communications device).

Since Apple is busy enough thinking their products are an entire product category of it's own i have a hard time believing why a tablet can be infringing, not to mention the fact that the same could be said with any rectangular shaped device with a monitor bigger than a phone but smaller than a laptop.

It's stuff like this Apple are annoyed about:

http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/...harging-cable-socket-design

techbeck said,

Really? The fact that it says SAMSUNG on the tab and that it's a different shape didnt give you a clue?

At a glance they do look very similar just the Tab has a different as

techbeck said,

Really? The fact that it says SAMSUNG on the tab and that it's a different shape didnt give you a clue?

At a glance they do look very similar, just the Tab has a different aspect ratio and no hardware button.

omgben said,

At a glance they do look very similar, just the Tab has a different aspect ratio and no hardware button.

How else are you going to make a tablet? I know lets make a tiny screen on a large product that is not codusive to touch technology. Seriously!!!!

DomZ said,

It's stuff like this Apple are annoyed about:

http://www.geekwithlaptop.com/...harging-cable-socket-design

So what should Samsung do? Add pins to the connector that do nothing just so they can get a less similar connector?

Should they make the housing huge and uncomfortable to the point that it can barely be used without risking damage from hitting the housing?

It's not by coincidence manufacturers are choosing to create a very small housing for their connector, the smaller it is, the less likely it is to receive the kind of shock that would possibly break the connector.

Similarly you're not going to see anyone selling a monitor that's round, or a tablet that's round (Unless as part of some obscure design statement, or if the turns out the "rectangular design" was flawed), they're not choosing to make tables rectangular to copy Apple, they're choosing it because it's the best design choice for such a device.

You could easily argue that by the same standard HDMI, DP and to some extend SATA connectors would all be "stealing" their design from USB, which in turn probably "stole" it from someone else.

ZAnwar said,
Apple being as deceiving as ever.

The ex parte issue is a big modifier as that means Apple wanted a quick turnaround (like same day) of the judge's preliminary finding related to the evidence. By presenting falsified evidence it will look to any judge that Apple was trying to pull a fast one. And judge's REALLY don't like that...

ZAnwar said,
Apple being as deceiving as ever.

Yea, deceiving as ever, one picture they put in their 64 pages long document was distorted. The rest weren't though, doubt it was their fault...

Leonick said,

Yea, deceiving as ever, one picture they put in their 64 pages long document was distorted. The rest weren't though, doubt it was their fault...

Bet it was the one picture that was on the front page or in a very highlighted keypoint in the document. ZAnwar is right, Crapple being as decieving as ever.

I like how apple is comparing the non-default view with their default view too.

Really pitiful attempt to make this a case of apples vs apples when it is just apples vs oranges.

SierraSonic said,
I like how apple is comparing the non-default view with their default view too.

Really pitiful attempt to make this a case of apples vs apples when it is just apples vs oranges.

Apple is scared. They will do anything at this point.

UndergroundWire said,

Apple is scared. They will do anything at this point.


^Win. When you can't compete or innovate, sue. Pathetic, really.

SierraSonic said,
I like how apple is comparing the non-default view with their default view too.

Really pitiful attempt to make this a case of apples vs apples when it is just apples vs oranges.


Well, this is one image from a 64 page document, it's taken very out of context, there are pages where both are in landscape. And as far as I can see that is the only image where the aspect ratio of the device is off so yea...

PlogCF said,

^Win. When you can't compete or innovate, sue. Pathetic, really.

Apple is rarely ever innovated, despite how much they claim to and how much their fanboys think they do. This whole forged evidense thing is proof of how desperate they are, they know the competition is better.

Beyond Godlike said,

Apple is rarely ever innovated, despite how much they claim to and how much their fanboys think they do. This whole forged evidense thing is proof of how desperate they are, they know the competition is better.

I'll give Apple credit for this, Apple is innovative with their hardware only. They come out with some good hardware but the software is not up to standards.

No one can really deny that the iPhone, iPad and Macbook Air were not innovative. However people can argue that iOS is not up to the competition.

Why were the original devices not entered into evidences with total dimensions? The use of a picture is a bit to abstract because it's not a tangible object. This can not be all that the court used to determine the evidence of IP violations.