News - Apple suspected of providing flawed evidence in tablet case

[3dcandy]

@Crossy - perhaps it's more skewed towards techy people, but a rough cross-section of tablet and netbook owners seem to show that they want their devices to do more. Netbooks have been shunned by quite a few simply because they don't play facebook games very well. Tablet owners have got bored of what they can do and typing on them is a pain. That's the short and brief answer to show my line of reasoning. Factor in that people have less to spend and the shift really seems to be going over to smartphones which appear to be doing everything for a vast majority...

[mrochester]

So it looks like the ruling has been called into question over whether a German court has the authority to ban a device EU wide. The GT 10.1 remains banned in Germany.

It'd be nice if Apple did get scared off though, drop this daft case, and get back to competing on a technical/price point rather than legal strongarming.

It's only legal strongarming if you don't have a case. Apple, or any other company for that matter, are perfectly entitled to persue entities who they believe have willfully infringed on their patents/design rights.

if apple had there way there would be no phone with apps on, touchscreens, music players etc and we would all be stuck with snake and space impact on oldskl nokias if you didnt have a iphone

If Apple had their way, you'd be deep down a mineral shaft with a chain around your neck, digging out wealth for their shareholders to roll around in.

It would be lovely, just for once, to be able to visit a forum where people didn't make stupid comments such as this. Can we not just keep to the topic at hand?

[Smudger]

I thought this was about design rights, not patent?

The fact that the line drawing entered to register the design could be anything from a tablet to a digital photo frame seems to be immaterial.

[3dcandy]

problem is guys and gals that to non-Apple fans they come over all cocky and bullish and they can't see what the fuss over Apple products is. To Apple fans, well they're demi-gods who can do no wrong. Companies that polarise opinions like this will always spark a debate that can degenerate into mudslinging and stupid comments...however, for my part, I believe that Apple will come off worse in this case and following cases if they continue what appears to be heavy handed legal cases on all and sundry. There will come a point when either people who refuse to buy their products or buy other products just to say take that Apple. As a company, that is not the way you want things to be...

[mrochester]

I thought this was about design rights, not patent?

The fact that the line drawing entered to register the design could be anything from a tablet to a digital photo frame seems to be immaterial.

Yeah sorry, it is, I've stuck in an extra two words!

[mrochester]

problem is guys and gals that to non-Apple fans they come over all cocky and bullish and they can't see what the fuss over Apple products is. To Apple fans, well they're demi-gods who can do no wrong. Companies that polarise opinions like this will always spark a debate that can degenerate into mudslinging and stupid comments...however, for my part, I believe that Apple will come off worse in this case and following cases if they continue what appears to be heavy handed legal cases on all and sundry. There will come a point when either people who refuse to buy their products or buy other products just to say take that Apple. As a company, that is not the way you want things to be...

I question why people can't just be somewhere in the middle, and remain objective. I very much doubt that this action will have any significant affect an Apple's ability to sell products, and for each and every person who may choose not to buy Apple as a result of this, there's probably another who'll choose not to buy Samsung because of this.

It would be nice if this thread could remain on topic, and be free from childish and ignorant comments!

[3dcandy]

and I sometimes wish the thread could be free from people who take the view that some people's comments are childish and ignorant. It's a debate, an open forum if you wish and you are entitled to your view the same as the rest of us. If you don't like people's comment you are free to not read the thread.

[mrochester]

and I sometimes wish the thread could be free from people who take the view that some people's comments are childish and ignorant. It's a debate, an open forum if you wish and you are entitled to your view the same as the rest of us. If you don't like people's comment you are free to not read the thread.

What I don't like are comments that have no value or aren't related to the topic at hand. I think the real solution is that if people feel the need to make comments that aren't linked to the topic at hand, they should create another thread to do so. At least then I can chose not to read their off topic comments because they would no longer appear in the topic I am reading and discussing. I'm sure we can agree on that.

[aidanjt]

It would be lovely, just for once, to be able to visit a forum where people didn't make stupid comments such as this. Can we not just keep to the topic at hand?

It's relevant because that's the level of Apple's ethics. And it'd be lovely, just for once, to be able to visit a forum where people didn't defend Apple out of purchase justification reflex, and the RDF.

Also, you have a cheek to call comments 'childish' and 'stupid' when you stoop to name-calling.

[dangel]

Apple command brand worship like no other - but gone are the days of obscurity, being the underdog etc etc. They hardly need defending now - they're extremely litigious and well able to do that themselves. This case stinks to any 'objective' person for three reasons:

1. The design right was granted in the first place.
2. It's so generic it could almost be a picture frame(!)
3. Apple's doctored submission - squashing a picture to match the iPad and editing out logos etc.

Now, 1 isn't their fault, 2 is (but that's how it's done) and 3 is an amazingly convenient 'mistake' by very well paid professionals. At this point the objective view is obvious "well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." etc. Apple are likely going to have a hard time on this one and rightly so - but I don't think that would change if it were another company in the headline. That said, a lot of people need to save face now - not just Apple and their lawyers but the court themselves. I suspect much will be done behind closed doors (if not already).

The positive thing? I think this raises the profile of how broken some of our systems are - and perhaps we can get the gears moving on fixing things in the longer term.

[mrochester]

It's relevant because that's the level of Apple's ethics. And it'd be lovely, just for once, to be able to visit a forum where people didn't defend Apple out of purchase justification reflex, and the RDF.

No one should do that either. I'm sure we're all grown up enough to have a well thought out, reasoned discussion without resorting to immature and childish comments that lack debatable merit.

Apple command brand worship like no other - but gone are the days of obscurity, being the underdog etc etc. They hardly need defending now - they're extremely litigious and well able to do that themselves. This case stinks to any 'objective' person for three reasons:

1. The design right was granted in the first place.
2. It's so generic it could almost be a picture frame(!)
3. Apple's doctored submission - squashing a picture to match the iPad and editing out logos etc.

Now, 1 isn't their fault, 2 is (but that's how it's done) and 3 is an amazingly convenient 'mistake' by very well paid professionals. At this point the objective view is obvious "well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." etc. Apple are likely going to have a hard time on this one and rightly so - but I don't think that would change if it were another company in the headline. That said, a lot of people need to save face now - not just Apple and their lawyers but the court themselves. I suspect much will be done behind closed doors (if not already).

I think you need to read about point number 3 before drawing any conclusions. We don't yet have confirmation of the source of the offending picture, and we have already been shown evidence that Samsung themselves have produced Galaxy Tabs without the Samsung logo on the front, so those images probably haven't been altered in anyway. The supposedly doctored image actually looks more like a computer generated render to me.

[aidanjt]

No one should do that either.

And yet...

I'm sure we're all grown up enough to have a well thought out, reasoned discussion without resorting to immature and childish comments that lack debatable merit.

It only lacks debatable merit in your own mind, because you don't want to think about it.

[dangel]

looks more like a computer generated render to me.

I don't really care how any of it was done - I'm just commenting that it looks very bad to the general public (and me). The sum total of elements here looks bad for Apple - that's the point - what you state changes nothing. Again.

[mrochester]

And yet...


It only lacks debatable merit in your own mind, because you don't want to think about it.

Comments such as

"if apple had there way there would be no phone with apps on, touchscreens, music players etc and we would all be stuck with snake and space impact on oldskl nokias if you didnt have a iphone "

and

"If Apple had their way, you'd be deep down a mineral shaft with a chain around your neck, digging out wealth for their shareholders to roll around in. "

are not relevent to the topic of Apple being suspected to providing flawed evidence in this case. Like I said, let's try and keep this thread on topic.

I don't really care how any of it was done - I'm just commenting that it looks very bad to the general public (and me). The sum total of elements here looks bad for Apple - that's the point.

Perhaps if you only take the news that are reporting these events at face value. What if this image hasn't been doctored by Apple? It only looks bad if you assume Apple is guilty of doctoring the image. But as yet, we don't know whether that is the case or not, so we must remain objective on the matter until we know one way or the other. If Apple are found to have doctored this image for the purpose of furthering their case, then yes, that will look bad. But as yet, the scenario that they haven't doctored the image is still perfectly possible, at which point it doesn't look bad for Apple at all.

[dangel]

Perhaps if you only take the news that are reporting these events at face value. What if this image hasn't been doctored by Apple? It only looks bad if you assume Apple is guilty of doctoring the image. But as yet, we don't know whether that is the case or not, so we must remain objective on the matter until we know one way or the other. If Apple are found to have doctored this image for the purpose of furthering their case, then yes, that will look bad. But as yet, the scenario that they haven't doctored the image is still perfectly possible, at which point it doesn't look bad for Apple at all.

Again, what's your point? That I'm not being objective? Tosh. Am I supposed to disagree that it's possible Apple didn't do A B and C? "Perhaps", "We don't know" and "perfectly possible" - sure I didn't say differently - the sum total looks bad for Apple and as I indicated ("closed doors") I actually believe the truths of this case will never see the light of day. But any "objective" person reading what's actually out there *right now* would struggle to believe Apple are the shiny happy people in the case - again see previous post. I can't really see why that's a point for conjecture or why you seem to think you have some deeper understanding of the situation compared to I (or a number of others for that matter). The sum total of elements here looks bad for Apple - that's the point - what you state changes nothing. Again.

[aidanjt]

are not relevent to the topic of Apple being suspected to providing flawed evidence in this case. Like I said, let's try and keep this thread on topic.

They're relevant because they speak to the depth of Apple's ethical standards. What relevance does "stupid", "childish", and other handwaving remarks have on the discussion other than to derail non-pro-Apple momentum?