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, 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!
Permalink for comment 486198
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Pana4
by atsureki on Sun 21st Aug 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Pana4"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2