Samsung to pay Apple $290m (

[FloatingFatMan]

I agree. I think the image was probably edited by some less senior member of staff who didn't realise the impact it would have on the trial, rather than being a malicious manipulation. They just couldn't, COULDN'T, have thought they would get away with such a blatant manip. 

 

What relevance is it WHO at Apple changed the images?  It's a FACT that it was done by an Apple employee and they then presented those images as evidence.  They hold full responsibility for doing that.

 

In any sane court in the land, it's a criminal act to tamper with evidence.

[FloatingFatMan]

I work in a criminal defence solicitors office and the prosecution (nor, indeed, us) would try such blatant crap because it would be a waste of energy. It would just never work. You call it naive, I call it realistic. 

 

 

It already resembles it, is the point I'm making. The app drawer isn't the home screen, but that doesn't mean the Galaxy S doesn't look like the iPhone - especially with the app drawer open. They are the closest equivalent screens that can be compared on the two phones, as both display the installed applications. 

 

 

Windows Mobile predates iOS by many years, and it also displays its installed applications in a similar grid, also accessed in a similar way to Android, by selecting an on screen option to get to it. Therefore if Android copied anyone, it copied Microsoft.

 

 

 

 

It might not be quite as pretty, but it's still colourful icons showing installed applications in a grid.  It's quite incredible that this clear prior art didn't invalidate Apple's claims.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

What relevance is it WHO at Apple changed the images? It's a FACT that it was done by an Apple employee and they then presented those images as evidence. They hold full responsibility for doing that.

In any sane court in the land, it's a criminal act to tamper with evidence.

The relevance is that if a secretary did it, it was probably an honest mistake, but if a lawyer did it it was probably a malicious act.

Windows Mobile predates iOS by many years, and it also displays its installed applications in a similar grid, also accessed in a similar way to Android, by selecting an on screen option to get to it. Therefore if Android copied anyone, it copied Microsoft.

It might not be quite as pretty, but it's still colourful icons showing installed applications in a grid. It's quite incredible that this clear prior art didn't invalidate Apple's claims.

A vertical list of icons with a scroll bar vs. horizontal scrolling pages of icons. There is also no dock at the bottom in the windows one. Also, not sure if you noticed but the galaxy S displays the exact same number of icons as the iPhone.

The windows implementation looks quite different.

[FloatingFatMan]

The relevance is that if a secretary did it, it was probably an honest mistake, but if a lawyer did it it was probably a malicious act.

 

You don't "accidentally" doctor images; you do it because someone senior to you ordered you to do it.  Whether it was someone in Apple's legal team or not doesn't matter. It was done and presented as legal evidence, therefore fraudulent.

 

 A vertical list of icons with a scroll bar vs. horizontal scrolling pages of icons. There is also no dock at the bottom in the windows one. Also, not sure if you noticed but the galaxy S displays the exact same number of icons as the iPhone.

The windows implementation looks quite different.

 

You're focusing on small details instead of the core functionality, which is a grid of icons showing installed applications.  Minor cosmetic differences are irrelevant, it's the core functionality there which counts.  The number of columns is also irrelevant is that is dictated by the screen size and resolution.

 

That screenshot is of an early version of Windows Mobile. Later versions evolved to eliminate the scroll bars yet still displayed icons in a grid.  It's core functionality that IS clear prior art.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

You don't "accidentally" doctor images; you do it because someone senior to you ordered you to do it. Whether it was someone in Apple's legal team or not doesn't matter. It was done and presented as legal evidence, therefore fraudulent.

You're focusing on small details instead of the core functionality, which is a grid of icons showing installed applications. Minor cosmetic differences are irrelevant, it's the core functionality there which counts. The number of columns is also irrelevant is that is dictated by the screen size and resolution.

That screenshot is of an early version of Windows Mobile. Later versions evolved to eliminate the scroll bars yet still displayed icons in a grid. It's core functionality that IS clear prior art.

Well the court clearly didn't think it was fraudulent. Ill believe the words of a judge over an armchair lawyer any day.

Patents describe everything down to the minute details... They have to be specific. You can't patent 'grid of icons' - you have to be far more specific about the design, implementation and purpose. Again, if a court found Samsung to have copied Apple, I'll trust that over some random person on Neowin!

Judge's have the power to kick a case out if there's a lack of evidence and it would be 'unsafe' to put it before a jury. Clearly that didn't happen so there was enough evidence to put before a jury and Apple actually won - both in the initial trial and again on appeal.

They copied. End of story. And both Apples and Samsungs screens look absolutely nothing like the windows implementation nor do they act the same.

[FloatingFatMan]

Again, not every judge has.  Lucy Koh's word isn't the law of the world, after all. Apple have lost just as many points as they've gained in this stupid patent war; which only has ONE loser... The consumer.

 

I'm wondering something, why do you support Apple in this?  Despite what the judges decide, it's pretty clear that Apple DID intentionally doctor those images, they just got away with doing so due to very good lawyers and lack of evidence.  I might sound as if I'm supporting Samsung, but actually I support the side of the consumer.  These patent wars need to stop and the seriously broken patent system fixed.  It just is not fit for purpose when it comes to modern technology.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Again, not every judge has.  Lucy Koh's word isn't the law of the world, after all. Apple have lost just as many points as they've gained in this stupid patent war; which only has ONE loser... The consumer.

 

I'm wondering something, why do you support Apple in this?  Despite what the judges decide, it's pretty clear that Apple DID intentionally doctor those images, they just got away with doing so due to very good lawyers and lack of evidence.  I might sound as if I'm supporting Samsung, but actually I support the side of the consumer.  These patent wars need to stop and the seriously broken patent system fixed.  It just is not fit for purpose when it comes to modern technology.

 

"It's pretty clear"

...

"lack of evidence."

 

How is it pretty clear they doctored the images if there's a lack of evidence that they did so? Your own bias / feelings towards Apple is what makes it "pretty clear" to you, but judges should be impartial. 

 

I agree that the patent system needs reform, but that's not what I've been discussing in this thread. I think Samsung is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in terms of CURRENT law. 

 

I think that patents are stupid. If somebody comes up with an idea completely of their own accord, should they be sued just because someone else came up with the idea first? Seems daft to me. I haven't given enough thought to the matter to suggest anything else though. 

[FloatingFatMan]

"It's pretty clear"

...

"lack of evidence."

 

How is it pretty clear they doctored the images if there's a lack of evidence that they did so? Your own bias / feelings towards Apple is what makes it "pretty clear" to you, but judges should be impartial. 

 

 

Engage your brain for a few minutes and you'll figure it out, it's not hard.

 

The images are clearly altered so that they no longer fit reality. This cannot be argued with as Apple have agreed they images were changed.

 

What cannot be proved, is the intent behind those changes.  Whilst's it's pretty obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that the intent was to deceive, what there isn't, is evidence to prove that intent.

 

The Scots have a special verdict for such things; "Not proven".  This means guilt is likely but it cannot be absolutely proven in court so they get away with it.  Apple's actions and attempts to deceive the courts are despicable and I really don't see how anyone can defend them.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Engage your brain for a few minutes and you'll figure it out, it's not hard.

The images are clearly altered so that they no longer fit reality. This cannot be argued with as Apple have agreed they images were changed.

What cannot be proved, is the intent behind those changes. Whilst's it's pretty obvious to anyone capable of rational thought that the intent was to deceive, that there isn't, is evidence to prove that intent.

The Scots have a special verdict for such things; "Not proven". This means guilt is likely but it cannot be absolutely proven in court so they get away with it. Apple's actions and attempts to deceive the courts are despicable and I really don't see how anyone can defend them.

If there's no evidence to prove that intent, then why would anybody capable of rational thought jump to the conclusion that Apple deliberately and maliciously doctored the images? That would be a knee jerk hate reaction, rather than a rational thought through reaction.

Who even knows where Apple got the images from? Maybe the source image was already distorted in such a way.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

I am not going to point fingers. However, Please keep the comments on topic and stop with the personal attacks. Keep the conversation about the penalties and the facts please.

[ctebah]

Just going to leave this here for all the Apple haters:

quote:

It is understood that the judge involved in the German case made his ruling based on a physical examination of the two tablets, rather than relying Apple's paper submission alone.

For those of you who think judges and juries only look at pictures....well you're as naive as those that think Samsung didn't copy.

[FloatingFatMan]

If there's no evidence to prove that intent, then why would anybody capable of rational thought jump to the conclusion that Apple deliberately and maliciously doctored the images? That would be a knee jerk hate reaction, rather than a rational thought through reaction.

Who even knows where Apple got the images from? Maybe the source image was already distorted in such a way.

 

Because it's physically impossible to accidentally adjust those images.  

 

If Apple were being honest about it, their submitted images would have clearly shown the substantial size and ratio differences. But weirdly, they had somehow magically managed to distort and adjust themselves so that they looked JUST how Apple would have liked them to look.

 

If you truly believe it was done by accident, you're the most naive person on here.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Because it's physically impossible to accidentally adjust those images.

If Apple were being honest about it, their submitted images would have clearly shown the substantial size and ratio differences. But weirdly, they had somehow magically managed to distort and adjust themselves so that they looked JUST how Apple would have liked them to look.

If you truly believe it was done by accident, you're the most naive person on here.

That's why I suggested it may have been adjusted by a lesser member of staff who didn't realise the monumental error they made. I just don't think any lawyer would be stupid enough to try and get away with something so obvious.

[evo_spook]

You do realise that Samsung and complied a book on every aspect of the iphone to copy from