Gruber claims that "The dispute here is over one image" [1], but I don't think that's accurate. Almost all of the images in the document have been squeezed in manners that make the devices look more similar.
- Many of the images are taken at an extreme angle which, while looking very nice, doesn't let you get a good look at the device (e.g. pp. 26, 32, 38)
- They play pretty free and loose with distorting the aspect ratios of their images. See a decidedly square-looking Tab on pp. 26, 35 and a freakishly elongated iPad on pp. 27, 36.
- pp. 39 takes the cake for "how can we fudge things to make it look like they're the same size"
In fact, far from being "over one image", it seems that the majority of the images have has their aspect ratios distorted in order to make the devices seem more similar, and the remainder have been shot at angles that deliberately hide dissimilarities.
I would argue that the aspect ratio of the Tab is one of its most distinctive features (I don't like it, but it is distinctive...). It's the first thing you notice when you pick one up. Not surprising that Apple is trying to downplay this difference.
Of course Gruber is spinning this to be about "one image." Pro-Apple spin is largely what he seems to do these days. Does anyone think that, were this situation reversed, that Gruber would be intentionally trying to make this about a single image? Of course he wouldn't.
I still read Gruber everyday- he has a lot of interesting things to say about technology in general and Apple in particular. But it is increasingly hard to take him seriously about any story related to Apple's anti-android litigation, because he seems to have abandoned any attempt to present the situation fairly, to the point where he has really become a rather naked shill for Apple.
I am typing this on an iPad 2. I love my iPad 2. I tried a great number of tablets prior to purchasing it, and I genuinely find it to be the superior product, and by a long shot. I am even sympathetic to Apple's claims in this case, as I do think the resemblance between the Galaxy and the iPad to be more than simple coincidence. But it seems pretty clear to me that this is about much more (or should be about much more) than one "doctored" photo, and I am absolutely sure that Gruber knows it.
The thing is, I don't think he cares, because it seems as if he's completely abandoned even the pretense of presenting a just and fair picture of any of Apple's recent patent litigation.
I'm in the same boat. I've been a reader of Daring Fireball for many years now and still find a lot of it interesting, but I just have to roll my eyes and keep on scrolling anytime he gets on the subject of Apple vs. anybody else these days. The lack of perspective is simply staggering.
With ads making him $6000 a week, I don't blame him. He is telling people what they want to hear and the ads reach people they're trying to reach. He gets invited to Apple events thanks to him being the unofficial de-facto Apple PR and he can't risk hurting that. There's no incentive for him to be objective, in fact it is in his interest to lay the spin on thick.
Wow, I have seen Gruber's site linked for years on various sites, but never knew about the sponsorship. If that's not a paid and bribed shill, I don't know who is.
Just imagine Gruber gets objective and starts sometimes criticizing Apple or doesn't spin things so much as he does for Apple. Or actually praise the other companies for good things they do. He will lose readership and growth of it. Apple will cut his access to Apple events which will make his articles further worthless. That's a huge monetary loss and strong incentive to keep spinning things and dissing competitors. hypocritically. Same with a a paid shill... stop toeing the party line and you stop getting paid...
Is this the first you've heard of journalism? The situation you're talking about here is hardly special to John Gruber. Even people who don't get paid are generally subject to similar forces. The only way to avoid it is just not to talk about anything.
I know it is hard to pass judgement from a single story like this, since I am sure someone has another version of this story to tell...but this still takes a bite out of my "I love Apple" mentality. If this is entirely true, it is the kind of thing that should really upset someone who has believes in a fair and just world. The fact that lawyers can get away with filing million dollar lawsuits with falsified information is a slap in the face of what the legal system should be.
I have seen this in much smaller scale personal lawsuits as well and it is really disparaging to see the system manipulated by lawyers and there to be no consequence for doing it. In my opinion if a lawsuit is filed with entirely fabricated information which was easily verifiable by the filing part at the time of filing, then there should be serious consequences for those people.
What's most incomprehensible to me is that they really don't need to do any of this. They are winning in the marketplace, they are making the best products by far and they are raking in record levels of profits. Why stoop so low when you don't need to?
This is what bothers me as well. Its one thing to be some 'wanna be' player who is struggling for market share, its quite another to be the gorilla in the market and to pull stunts like this.
I suspect that they do it because they can do it, and frankly I hope the whole "design patents" issue goes the same way the "look and feel" lawsuits went in the 90's, which is to say "Its not exactly the same, deal with it."
Not to mention that they have liberally borrowed features from Android for the last two major iOS releases. Folders, the notification system, cloud integration, OTA updates etc. If you're going to take such a self-righteous stand on borrowing then you better be lilly-white yourself.
Given that Android was such a complete and utter ripoff of iOS I don't think a couple of features is much to point out. Lets put it in perspective here.
I think Android's great, but seriously, come on. There's homage and there's 'shit, touch phones rock, we need to completely copy iOS now!'. Which is exactly what Google did.
Android was obviously heavily inspired by iOS, but most of the new features in iOS 4 & 5 seem to have been borrowed in the other direction. The stuff Google is doing with live widgets and the status bar in 3.2 is advancing the state of the art and it would be a shame to see this kind of real innovation stamped out.
So the images Apple supplied to German courts showed the Samsung hardware altered in the following ways: 1. Aspect ratio changed to be identical to iPad. 2. Samsung logo removed.
Also, they show the app drawer screen instead of the default home screen.
Samsung wasn't allowed to see any of this evidence before the court gave the injunction.
Is it even possible that this wasn't deliberate, willful deception on the part of Apple lawyers?
One reason why the courts decide so swiftly in Germany (in cases like this) is that the evidence that was presented by Apple was presented under oath. As you can imagine, lying under oath is no joke.
The evidence provided can be taken at face value by the courts but if they are asked to do that, lying or misleading is punished harshly.
Most of the pics without a logo seem to be pre-release marketing photos. I wonder if the Apple submittal grabbed a marketing photo someplace. We shall soon see.
Hopefully (for Apple) they used an image that Samsung actually produced somewhere in a pre-release mock up or ad or something but it seems doubtful. I don't know German laws but I'd hope falsifying information is not taken lightly.
In fact, the charge is that one image is so modified. The original document[1] contains many images, in which you can clearly see the difference that is supposedly being covered up. While I can totally see Apple being reprimanded for this, I think it's extremely doubtful that it's going to change the court's opinion overall.
I just scrolled through the document you linked. While there are additional images of the Galaxy in that document, the allegedly altered one is the only one I saw that compared them both powered on, closely side-by-side, and not at an angle.
The other images are much more difficult to compare. If you were to pick one image to alter in that document to 'make your case', they picked the most influential one. It is difficult for me to see that as accidental.
I don't mean to say it was accidental. Only that it's not as though Apple's case hinges on precise proportions or trick photography. The resemblance being claimed[1] isn't fabricated, even if it's been embellished. They got an injunction because they were able to convince the court that a) they have a case, and b) they're likely to win, and I don't think that would be any different if the photos were unassailably accurate.
[1]:Even though the photo makes the aspect ratio look similar, they aren't actually claiming that in the text as one of the features of the design that were lifted. They closest they come is citing the exact dimensions (which they list) as "very similar".
As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and that was the only picture that compared both tablets side by side.
Usually the courts don't take kindly to being lied to, especially leading to a emergency decision prohibiting the sale of devices. Lets see what happens.
So the dispute is partly over the similarity of aspect ratio?
Now we're patenting ratios?
Most TVs are the same aspect ratio. In the old days the were all virtually the same aspect ratio. These days videos can be different aspect ratios shown within the same TV. All the TVs look about the same ratio, I suppose because of whatever the largest ratio is.
On a computer, phone or tablet it's the other way around, the device (partly) determines the aspect ratio of the displayed object.
So now each device has to pre-select a different aspect ratio for displayed objects? What's the minimum allowed difference?
So the dispute is partly over the similarity of aspect ratio?
No.
The accusation is that Apple's image makes it look like it has the same aspect ratio, and that that falsely makes them look more similar. But the actual text of Apple's complaint does not say anything to the effect that the proportions are one of the distinctive features they think were copied.
This looks like it is actually based on a kind of design-patent (Geschmacksmuster) we have here in Germany.
Apple patented the IPad look.
Those are the charcoal images (they include them in b&w so that they're more general).
Those patents only have to be formally correct and are not tested for e.g. prior art by an institution. This happens in court if the patent is actually used.
Given that even the tablets the romans scratched their numbers in had round edges and were sometimes very slim, this might not be so good for apple...
If it weren't for this "blog spam", how would HN know about it? Obama may or may not have killed a baby in 1991 but pictures of him appearing to kill a baby would certainly be newsworthy.
It is a bit weasel worded, but there is at least some evidence of falsified information that makes this far from a "when did you stop beating your wife?" situation.
Gruber claims that "The dispute here is over one image" [1], but I don't think that's accurate. Almost all of the images in the document have been squeezed in manners that make the devices look more similar.
- Many of the images are taken at an extreme angle which, while looking very nice, doesn't let you get a good look at the device (e.g. pp. 26, 32, 38)
- They play pretty free and loose with distorting the aspect ratios of their images. See a decidedly square-looking Tab on pp. 26, 35 and a freakishly elongated iPad on pp. 27, 36.
- pp. 39 takes the cake for "how can we fudge things to make it look like they're the same size"
In fact, far from being "over one image", it seems that the majority of the images have has their aspect ratios distorted in order to make the devices seem more similar, and the remainder have been shot at angles that deliberately hide dissimilarities.
I would argue that the aspect ratio of the Tab is one of its most distinctive features (I don't like it, but it is distinctive...). It's the first thing you notice when you pick one up. Not surprising that Apple is trying to downplay this difference.
[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-im...