Dutch Site Finds Manipulated Evidence in Apple Samsung Filing

| News

WebWereld.nl, a Netherlands tech website, accused Apple Inc. of submitting misleading evidence with the Regional Court of Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case against Samsung. Apple was granted a preliminary injunction that banned the import of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet device into Europe (Samsung will appeal that ruling), but WebWereled.nl said the company submitted flawed evidence to obtain that injunction.

The issue is with side by side photos of the two devices that Apple submitted in its filing. While the court document filed by Apple (and posted to Scribd) includes many and more photos of the two devices, it’s the image below, taken directly from that document, that has caused an uproar in the blogosphere.

Side by Side Comparison of iPad & Galaxy Tab 10.1 as Filed by Apple in German Court

Side by Side Comparison of iPad & Galaxy Tab 10.1 as Filed by Apple in German Court

In this image, the two devices are shown side by side and they look quite similar. Whether or not this was the evidence that caused the court to decide that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 violated Apple’s “Community Design” patent isn’t yet known, but many have jumped on it as being evidence faked by Apple to trick the court overseeing the case.

The image below was put together by WebWereld.nl showing Apple’s comparison and what it says are the proper dimensions of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

WebWereld Breakdown of Actual Dimensions

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is narrower than the device presented in Apple’s court filings
Source: WebWereld.nl

If Apple’s images were manipulated, there’s little doubt that it will come up in Samsung’s appeal hearing that will take place on August 25th, at which point we’ll most likely find out the judge’s take on the imagery.

Comments

BurmaYank

My inspection of those images shows they do not support WebWereld’s claim at all:  The device in the “alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1” (with the Aspect ratio of 1.36) is obviously not in any way the same device as the “official Galaxy Tab 10.1” (with the Aspect ratio of 1.46).  Just look at where the Samsung?s logo and the control buttons are placed on each. 

Therefore, it will be necessary for Samsung either to prove that Apple’s image of the device shown in “alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1” (with the Aspect ratio of 1.36) is actually not one of Samsung’s devices at all, or Samsung will need to provide an accurate image of the same device used in Apple’s image which demonstrates significant discrepancies from Apple’s submitted image.

But WebWereld’s device is an utterly different device from the one Apple referred to, so WebWereld’s claim is therfore utterly bogus.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Galaxy Tab home screen doesn’t look as drab as iPad’s with just a matrix of icons out of the box. It has widgets pre-installed. To me that’s the real dishonesty of Apple and its fans who have circulated such images. A user really has to work to make the home screen as ugly as the one depicted in the iPad/GTab comparison.

Lee Dronick

But WebWereld?s device is an utterly different device from the one Apple referred to, so WebWereld?s claim is therfore utterly bogus.

That doesn’t matter. The Apple haters will spin this like a top.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Here is the Galaxy Tab 10.1’s default home screen:

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-std-homescreen.jpg

The controls along the bottom of the landscape screen are soft controls, for those unfamiliar with Honeycomb devices.

@BurmaYank… I am utterly confused by your comment. Would you at least agree that if Apple concocted a strawman device that does not correctly represent various important characteristics of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in order to secure a preliminary injunction against imports, that it has perpetrated a fraud on the court and done a great injustice to Samsung? Cuz it appears that that is exactly what Apple did.

BurmaYank

Bosco: “Here is the Galaxy Tab 10.1?s default home screen:  http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-std-homescreen.jpg”

This discussion is not about what the Galaxy Tab 10.1?s default home screen looks like.  This discussion is about whether what Apple submitted as the image of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 is accurate, and whether or not the device WebWereld depicted as a Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a an utterly different device from the one Apple referred to, as it obviously is. (despite their having the same names).

Bosco: “controls along the bottom of the landscape screen are soft controls, for those unfamiliar with Honeycomb devices.”

Even if you are correct about those control buttons actually being soft controls, the position (and the absence) of the Logo & the camera indisputably proves these are two utterly different devices in those two photos, if nothing else does.

Bosco: “BurmaYank? I am utterly confused by your comment. Would you at least agree that if Apple concocted a strawman device that does not correctly represent various important characteristics of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in order to secure a preliminary injunction against imports, that it has perpetrated a fraud on the court and done a great injustice to Samsung?”

Yes, I certainly would agree with you, if that is what Apple clearly did.  But it seems quite clear that this has not happened here.

Bosco: “Cuz it appears that that is exactly what Apple did.”

 
NO WAY does it appear that that is what Apple did.
Hello - look again more closely, Bosco - obviously Apple’s image is of a completely different device, a SECOND Samsung version of a “Galaxy Tab 10.1”
It should be a piece of cake to prove whether or not Samsung actually created those two such completely different devices, now carrying the same name of “Galaxy Tab 10.1”.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Well, no. What it says is that Apple Photoshopped the image. OK, here’s some further proof for you, but it relies on you knowing how the home screen works on Android. There is a grid of spots where icons can go. Widgets can encompass a subgrid of the spots. But the icons and widgets snap to specific spots.

In the picture Apple submitted, there are 5 columns of icons in the Galaxy Tab. Compare that to this picture of a live Galaxy Tab 10.1 where there are 8 columns. Now, if you’re really into puzzles, you can try to figure out how Apple’s lawyers did the spacing like that so that left margin and right margin are the same. Because you can’t.

What BurmaYank seems to be saying is that the Euro version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has a completely different sized screen. Not likely, considering that page 27 of the document on scribd gets the relative aspect ratio of photographed devices correct.

But hey… Believe what you like about everyone copying Apple. The longer you hold out, the sillier you look.

KitsuneStudios

I don’t buy that BurmaYank. It should not be up to Samsung to prove a negative: if Apple is indeed showing a different device than the shipping Galaxy Tab, then they should be able to either produce the device they used, or the source of the image.

It’s possible that Apple used a pre-production photo of the Galaxy Tab, especially if those photos sparked the initial lawsuit investigation.

If not, and this really is a photo-chop, this should result in substantial penalties against Apple and their legal team.

BurmaYank

KitsuneStudios: It should not be up to Samsung to prove a negative.

You’re quite correct that Samsung should not have to prove a negative, but I never said it should

Obviously, in court where Apple might need to defend itself against such easily disprovable bogus accusations as these of WebWereld, it would be Apple that must (do what I said, namely) “...prove whether or not Samsung actually created those two such completely different devices, now carrying the same name of Galaxy Tab 10.1?.

Nothing Bosco has revealed has created any significant room for doubt about how crazy is the idea that either of of the original images of the devices involved suffered such Photoshopped distortions by Apple.

jfbiii

If you look at the entire complaint (and not just this one image) it seems pretty clear that what Samsung did is far more egregious than some legal secretary messing up one image.

Peter

It should be a piece of cake to prove whether or not Samsung actually created those two such completely different devices, now carrying the same name of ?Galaxy Tab 10.1?.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that Apple used photos of a Galaxy Tab mark 1 in part of their document and a Galaxy Tab mark 2 in the rest of their document and that this is just an honest mistake because Samsung sent them two Galaxy Tabs and how are they supposed to know the difference?

Apply Occam’s Razor here.  Is it more likely that Apple used a picture of a pre-release Galaxy Tab by accident in only that one place or is it more likely that Apple adjusted the screen shot?

Dance, fanboi!  Dance!

Lee Dronick
Sobasicallywhat you?re saying is that Apple used photos of a Galaxy Tab mark 1 in part of their document and a Galaxy Tab mark 2 in the rest of their document and that this is just an honest mistake because Samsung sent them two Galaxy Tabs and how are they supposed to know the difference?

Apply Occam?s Razor here.  Is it more likely that Apple used a picture of a pre-release Galaxy Tab by accident in only that one place or is it more likely that Apple adjusted the screen shot?

Dancefanboi!  Dance

Let us wait and see what a court of law says, the court of troll opinion doesn’t matter.

jfbiii

Apply Occam?s Razor here.

Apple: Somebody on Apple’s legal team screwed up and distorted an image in a Word document.

Samsung: One of Samsung’s engineers screwed up on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and copied the wrong numbers from the iPad specs.

BurmaYank

Peter: “So, basically, what you?re saying is that Apple used photos of a Galaxy Tab mark 1 in part of their document and a Galaxy Tab mark 2 in the rest of their document…”

No, I never said anything remotely close to the idea that Apple used any more than one single photo in its submitted document; it was not Apple that used the image you refer to as “Galaxy Tab mark 2” - it was WebWereld that used that photo,  Instead, Apple used ONLY the image you refer to as “Galaxy Tab mark 1”. 

I can’t fathom how you got such a confused misinterpretation of what I actually said, but it left you making wildly nonsensical conclusions about what might be the most likely explanation for the two different ?Galaxy Tab 10.1? device photos.

Peter: “Apply Occam?s Razor here.  Is it more likely that Apple used a picture of a pre-release Galaxy Tab by accident in only that one place or is it more likely that Apple adjusted the screen shot?”

As a result of your confusion above, you certainly failed in your question to me, to apply Occam’s razor (or the lex parsimoniae, i.e., the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, which is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions) here in this case, because both alternative hypotheses (1-that that Apple used a picture of a pre-release Galaxy Tab ... in the only place it used any kind of Galaxy Tab photos, and 2-that Apple adjusted the screen shot) each make the same number of assumptions, namely, only one assumption. 

So the hypothesis you chose is therefore no more likely, by Occam’s razor and by any other logic or any other evidence, than is the hypothesis that Apple simplyused a picture of a pre-release or some other variously-available “GalaxyTab 10.1” it happened to have available at the time.

Log-in to comment