Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:58 UTC
Legal Dutch news website investigated the claim that Apple supplied the German court with tampered evidence, and their research is pretty self-explanatory. I don't have the time to translate the article for you, but the images speak about ten thousands words; Apple has changed the aspect ratio of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a side-by-side comparison (while also showing Android's application drawer open instead of showing the home screen, but the article doesn't mention that). Come on, Apple. Update: As Gusar notes, Apple also Photoshopped the Samsung logo off the bezel. Real classy, Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 485247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: quick to judge ...
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: quick to judge ..."
Member since:

I don't see him mentioning Samsung's lawyers "forgot" about their day one claim. They clearly dropped it for some reason, probabbly because it wasn't going to hold, yet Thom keeps acting like it's already a proven fact.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: quick to judge ...
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 07:15 in reply to "RE[3]: quick to judge ..."
Neolander Member since:

Sir, hats off. It's bold of you to say that the claim wasn't going to hold in the comments of an article which shows pretty clearly that Apple *did* tamper with evidence.

Besides, not talking about something doesn't equate forgetting it, and journalists are not asked to report anything that *hasn't* happened during a case. Samsung's lawyer could well think that the evidence had indeed been tampered with, but that the "prior art" defense remained the simplest one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: quick to judge ...
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 09:32 in reply to "RE[4]: quick to judge ..."
MOS6510 Member since:

The case is about if the Galaxy Tab looks too much like an iPad. For this reason Samsung's lawyers suggested on day one Apple's evidence was altered. If you can prove this it should score a lot of points with the judge.

On day one Thom brought this news, although he promoted the suggestion to fact and does so again in this article.

However on day two Samsung's lawyers made no further mention of this.

Why didn't they do this? Why not present prior art AND evidence tempering? They'd be very bad lawyers if they presented their client like this and not using everything they can find to their advantage. It's their job to put all evidence, facts and even fiction on the table to score a victory for their client.

The only reason they didn't present this in their defense would be if it was a disadvantage to do so. Like when Apple's lawyers told them what's up with these pictures.

Google around, which Thom didn't, and you'll find some (possible) explanations.

If Samsung's lawyers just didn't bother to mention this to the judge this is equally stupid as photoshopping evidence, knowing the other party will notice this for sure.

As it stands now "willful tempering evidence" is not proven and not a fact.

Reply Parent Score: 0