Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Aug 2011 10:12 UTC
Legal After revealing that Apple tampered with evidence in the German case against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, WebWereld.nl has now revealed that Apple has also tampered with the evidence in the Dutch court case (coverage in English). Apple has manipulated the image of a Samsung Galaxy S in a side-by-side comparison with the iPhone 3GS. The Galaxy S has been shortened and made narrower so that its dimensions match those of the 3GS. This piece of evidence is the only side-by-side comparison of these two devices, and is part of the summons, which, according to a Dutch lawyer, means that Apple considers it to be of special significance. Just goes to show, once more, how far Apple is willing to go to stifle competition through the legal system - lying, cheating, manipulating. What a classy, premium company, that Apple!
Order by: Score:
pure insanity from Apple.
by unclefester on Fri 19th Aug 2011 10:24 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple has finally "jumped the shark". Any corporation that is so arrogant that it deliberately falsifies court evidence to block competitors has massive problems. This can only end very, very badly for Apple.

Reply Score: 15

v RE: pure insanity from Apple.
by Aragorn992 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 10:45 UTC in reply to "pure insanity from Apple."
v RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple.
by pervas on Fri 19th Aug 2011 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE: pure insanity from Apple."
RE[3]: pure insanity from Apple.
by Janvl on Fri 19th Aug 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple."
Janvl Member since:
2007-02-20

You should have read the articles here. A similar Tablet was already presented 17 years ago.
Apple was never very innovative, not in design and not in technical specs, they just know better how to do their marketing, that is until now . . . . .

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: pure insanity from Apple.
by ccraig13 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: pure insanity from Apple."
ccraig13 Member since:
2011-05-31

Interesting. I admit I've been guilty of this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple.
by arb1 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE: pure insanity from Apple."
arb1 Member since:
2011-08-19

"Apple has finally "jumped the shark". Any corporation that is so arrogant that it deliberately falsifies court evidence to block competitors has massive problems. This can only end very, very badly for Apple.


I disagree. This kind of aggression and ruthlessness makes me admire Apple from a purely capitalist point of view. I wish I had shares in this company ;)

It's funny how long it took someone to notice such an obvious falsification.
"

Last I checked falsifying evidence is very big no no in any court in the world. How can you admire a company that uses clearly unmoral and unethical tactic's to get an edge. Its only thing to do it and not get busted but when you do it in a court filing that is a can of worms Apple shouldn't of opened. I'm no lawyer but Samsung seems to have legal ground to sue for least 3 weeks of lost sales over this.

Reply Score: 9

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

If Germany is anything like Australia a few senior Apple executives will be serving prison time for perjury and their lawyers will be disbarred.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: pure insanity from Apple.
by Laurence on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: pure insanity from Apple."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

If Germany is anything like Australia a few senior Apple executives will be serving prison time for perjury and their lawyers will be disbarred.

It would be awesome if this happened. A big win for fair competition in my opinion.

Sadly I can't see it happening

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple.
by shmerl on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: pure insanity from Apple."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You admire liars and crooks? What does it have to do with "capitalist point of view"? It has something to do with crooked point of view.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple.
by Soulbender on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: pure insanity from Apple."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And that's why the self-regulating free market is a pipe dream.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: pure insanity from Apple.
by CapEnt on Sat 20th Aug 2011 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple."
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

In a ideal self-regulating free market, not even patents would exist at all, let alone a aberration like this community design thing that Apple are trying to exploit.

Hardcore liberals see court appeals between companies as a government intervention (in short, a company trying to leverage the power of the state in his favor against a competitor), since the judiciary system is a integral part of the state. For them, the sole legal limit that a corporation should have is the plain criminal law, to avoid competitors to kill each other if something went awry, for example. :-)

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

In theory the ideal communist state works well too.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: pure insanity from Apple.
by smashIt on Sun 21st Aug 2011 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: pure insanity from Apple."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

In theory the ideal communist state works well too.


the communists accepted their failure after the first crash
the capitalists produce one crash after another and don't learn from it

i don't want communism back, but i think we should have abandomed capitalism a long time ago

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple.
by SnelHest on Sat 20th Aug 2011 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE: pure insanity from Apple."
SnelHest Member since:
2011-08-04

This is not Capitalism.
It's as government-driven as it gets.

In capitalism (whether its a personal attitude or a political system), everything is settled by the parties involved only- and if they make or lose money or customers fighting each other by producing competitive products- Well, so it is. That's it. There's no court playing third-party (even if you looked for one). There are no patent rights. There is only limited scope for copyright. No one will hear your claims over code, science, hardware arrangements etc. You are responsible for people knowing what ideas are attributable to you.
There MIGHT be a provision for highly unique designs as art. But even art does not really have protection. Art, too, works like a market. If you get copied, you get copied.
You fight with your products to win. Make alliances with other companies if necessary- make the right choices.
The government is small or even almost non-existent - and simply for non-intrusive, contract-based administration of public services- which does not have any true money of its own- because it does not tax companies or people.
This is capitalism in the form people who talk about it mean.
I don't know when "Capitalism" became interchangeable with "Mixed economy", "Hedonism/Nihilism" and "Pragmatism", those words have been named especially to reflect that they are completely different ideas.

What we have here is absolutely nothing like that.
What I do admire, or rather what fascinates me, is the mad pragmatism of the company. (I think you mean this, too) ;)

It takes some serious ego and guts to do stuff like this- and I've got out the popcorn and I'm waiting (or hoping, is it? ;) ) for someone who will match them madness. ;) I'd love a good show.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: pure insanity from Apple.
by Delgarde on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pure insanity from Apple."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

This is not Capitalism.
It's as government-driven as it gets.


Yup, under 'pure' capitalism, companies wouldn't be taking each other to court over patent issues, because patents (and other forms of intellectual property) constitute government interference in the market.

Pure capitalism isn't much more desirable than pure socialism, but anyone who blames it for the current system understand what capitalism actually is.

Reply Score: 2

counter
by arb1 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 11:07 UTC
arb1
Member since:
2011-08-19

Samsung should file suit over this and get some lost $$$ since they could be selling their product which is clearly different then the ipad

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Gusar
by Gusar on Fri 19th Aug 2011 11:56 UTC
Gusar
Member since:
2010-07-16

And the open app-drawer again, of course. How much more insane can Apple get?

Reply Score: 2

What's next?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 19th Aug 2011 12:34 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

I can't wait until Apple starts filing libel suits in England against their critics, Church of Scientology-style. It's just about the only thing they haven't stooped to yet.

Reply Score: 6

RE: What's next?
by unclefester on Fri 19th Aug 2011 13:53 UTC in reply to "What's next?"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Don't give them ideas. Apple may become a religion and become tax exempt. They already have enough brain-washed followers.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: What's next?
by JAlexoid on Sat 20th Aug 2011 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE: What's next?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So they haven't yet become one!?!?!?! Shocking!!!

Reply Score: 2

v ...
by Hiev on Fri 19th Aug 2011 13:15 UTC
RE: ...
by unclefester on Fri 19th Aug 2011 13:51 UTC in reply to "..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Because it isn't news. Just some nutcase complaining that Google didn't pay enough for Motorola.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by Laurence on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:34 UTC in reply to "..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



Because nobody submitted it.

In fact, why are you even posting it here when it's not even the slightest bit relevant to this article?

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
RE[3]: ...
by Neolander on Fri 19th Aug 2011 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You can see the list of pending submissions, without being an editor, in this place : http://www.osnews.com/submit

Reply Score: 5

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 19th Aug 2011 13:59 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Beginning of the end for Apple? They must be seriously stupid thinking that it won't backfire on them with many people stopping buying their products out of disgust to be dealing with such crooks.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by pandronic on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

One can only hope

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by searly on Fri 19th Aug 2011 16:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

hmmm ... highly doubtful ... most people are actually not in the slightest interested in the legal wranglings of companies whose products they buy ... I think it is usually more people technically interested (as those frequenting sites like OSNews) that would care ... but on the larger scale this will blow over most people's heads ...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by shmerl
by testman on Wed 24th Aug 2011 00:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

"Apple is Doomed", eh?

Reply Score: 2

inventivity, that's all
by roger64 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 14:09 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15
Comment by Pana4
by Pana4 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 15:50 UTC
Pana4
Member since:
2010-09-17

For Apple to be trying to pull off this shit on a court, those Samsung Tabs must be AWESOME!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Pana4
by Hiev on Fri 19th Aug 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Pana4"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

That's the sad part, the Galaxy tab is no yet comparable to the iPad2, the iPad2 feels more responsive and smooth, and the applications are better, but the Galaxy Tab has flash, so that's a plus for some.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Pana4
by bnolsen on Fri 19th Aug 2011 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Pana4"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

It's in Apple's interest to go after potential competitors before they have enough money to bankroll a defense.

It's plain easier to drag defenseless people through the courts. (Yes I'm being cynnical here).

Edited 2011-08-19 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Pana4
by searly on Fri 19th Aug 2011 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Pana4"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

It's in Apple's interest to go after potential competitors before they have enough money to bankroll a defense.
.


I think you may find Samsung a larger company than Apple

Samsung Revenue 2010 - $ 205.9 billion
Apple Revenue 2010 - $ 65.23 billion

... (not that I agree with what Apple did, just your argument does not hold)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Pana4
by tidux on Fri 19th Aug 2011 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Pana4"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Between Samsung and Googorola (that sounds like some kaiju name from a Godzilla movie, but I digress), Apple is starting to upset a lot of powerful people. The funny part is, they're the only ones who are getting mad about it. Google tells their own employees that they need to use either Linux or a Mac for their office desktops. I wonder how long that will last with Apple continuing to attack everyone remotely related to smartphones or tablets.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Pana4
by marcus0263 on Sat 20th Aug 2011 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Pana4"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

Between Samsung and Googorola (that sounds like some kaiju name from a Godzilla movie, but I digress), Apple is starting to upset a lot of powerful people. The funny part is, they're the only ones who are getting mad about it. Google tells their own employees that they need to use either Linux or a Mac for their office desktops. I wonder how long that will last with Apple continuing to attack everyone remotely related to smartphones or tablets.


Not so, my Nephew is a Lead Dev at Google, all he uses is MS Windows

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Pana4
by Neolander on Sat 20th Aug 2011 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Pana4"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08
RE[7]: Comment by Pana4
by JAlexoid on Sat 20th Aug 2011 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Pana4"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well... Obviously Windows devs need to have Windows installed. It's over-hyped, because they probably have Linux/Mac as the preferred option, rather than mandatory.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Pana4
by unclefester on Fri 19th Aug 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Pana4"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Why Apple chose to attack Samsung in particular totally eludes me. Samsung doesn't even need their phone or tablet businesses to prosper.

However if this backfires eg the courts set a precedent weakening design protection Apple will be in dire trouble.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Pana4
by atsureki on Sun 21st Aug 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Pana4"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Why Apple chose to attack Samsung in particular totally eludes me. Samsung doesn't even need their phone or tablet businesses to prosper.


You just came up with a new reason: Samsung might be willing to back down if things get bad enough, or at least dump Android for something more... original.

The other reason is that Samsung is the Android vendor responsible for the closest copies, from the minimalist design and packaging to the look of the icons. Which also means that, regarding the rest of your comment:

However if this backfires eg the courts set a precedent weakening design protection Apple will be in dire trouble.


if Apple loses against Samsung, they'll know they have no rights against the less severe imitators, and it's time to move on.

They could have tried going against some of the more brazen Chinese counterfeits of past years to test the waters first and get some legal momentum, but there are a few problems with that. For one, there's just no point -- fake iPods weren't made by legitimate companies and never sold in serious numbers -- and for two, it might backfire: if they outright failed, the entire world would know that design protections are utterly unenforceable, and if they won, the precedent might not be helpful. When judges look at precedent, they hone in on the differences between the preceding and current cases, and they might get hung up on how much Samsung isn't a counterfeiter rather than how much they are an imitator.

So in short, Samsung, now, makes a lot of sense as a target.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Pana4
by JAlexoid on Sat 20th Aug 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Pana4"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

My eyes must be really well adjusted to PC level of smoothness...
Because iPad2 does not feel right, though in a different way than Android. iOS feels like having a smudging lag, while Android feels like having a jerking lag. WP7 feels somehow better...

Games, however, are a different area. And app responsiveness? No, pretty much depends on the app...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Pana4
by Thomas2005 on Fri 19th Aug 2011 18:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by Pana4"
Thomas2005 Member since:
2005-11-07

For Apple to be trying to pull off this shit on a court, those Samsung Tabs must be AWESOME!

My guess is, Apple views competing tablets and smart phones as an interference to their iCloud plans, which depends on people using their products. Then there is the matter of Apple's 30% cut from developers and businesses using Apple's app stores.

Reply Score: 2

Wow. No Bias in this article Thom.
by kristoph on Fri 19th Aug 2011 20:54 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple has asserted in its Dutch complaint several technical patents, unrelated to the size of the device, and a Community design that's also about a shape rather than a particular size.


... and ...

Apple clearly noted that there is a size difference between the two devices in its legal filing.


... and about the German case your foaming at the mouth on ...

, the judge in Germany did not base his decision against Samsung on Apple's photos alone. He also physically examined both devices before deciding that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely violated Apple's registered Community Design enough to issue an injunction


http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/is-apple-faking-evidence-...

All that said I don't disagree that what Apple has done is sloppy and probably morally questionable but this case is not going to be decided on a couple of pictures.

Reply Score: 5

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

As soon as the devices are physically presented to the court the Apple case will collapse. This can only be a futile delaying tactic at best.

Reply Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Did you bother to read my post?

The German judge not only saw the device he handled both devices and on the basis of that he decided to issue an injunction.

So, in fact, seeing the two devices convinced him that Apple would likely win the case!

Edited 2011-08-20 02:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

He was probably some doddering old fool who didn't even own a phone.

Reply Score: 1

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

That's what I was thinking too. The guy is probably completely unaware the that the iPad is the spitting image of the Knight Ridder, or that companies in the industry routinely copy each other's ideas or that Apple devices are polished up versions of other companies devices. In short, he takes a quick glance at the two devices and says, "Holy crap, these things look alike" without any real basis for an injunction.

Reply Score: 1

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Samsung need to take the judge down to a phone shop or computer store to see how very similar many products are. In many cases you can only really tell the difference by reading the makers brand on the case.

Reply Score: 3