News - Apple suspected of providing flawed evidence in tablet case

[mrochester]

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.

Well let's review the information that is out there.

On the one hand we have the news that Apple may have doctored a picture in the claim they filed against Samsung. As yet, we don't know whether that is true or false as the issue has not been investigated. This can't yet look good or bad for Apple because we don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.

A separate and unrelated issue is the temporary lifting of the ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a number of European countries (excluding Germany where the ban was first issued) due to issues surrounding whether a German court has the authority to ban a device throughout the EU. As a temporary measure, the ban has been lifted in countries where this German court may or may not have any authority until this is investigated. I assume that if it is found that the German court does have this authority, the device would be once again banned, and if it doesn't, then it will remain unbanned.

I suspect the issue is that people are incorrectly mixing the two stories to come to the conclusion that the ban has been temporarily lifted because Apple may have used doctored images. However, if that were the case, the ban would also have been lifted in Germany.

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?

Perhaps if you based the comments on actual events or scenarios that have occurred instead of making up something silly and baseless, their value would have been greater.

[Bunjiweb]

'mrochester', I think you are coming across rather too condescending to appear level headed or objective.

I think you should allow people to voice there opinions and put forward your argument constructively rather than worrying about how other people construct their argument.

*sigh*

[mrochester]

'mrochester', I think you are coming across rather too condescending to appear level headed or objective.

I think you should allow people to voice there opinions and put forward your argument constructively rather than worrying about how other people construct their argument.

*sigh*

OK I'll try . Apologies if I appeared condescending to anyone, I just really want to have a proper discussion about these things!

[Smudger]

Regardless of whether Apple doctored the images or not, they are inaccurate. Which I think makes the whole case invalid. At worst, this is Apple vindictively altering the facts in order to back up their case for no-one being able to produce a tablet, ever. At best, it's a glaring oversight by whoever put the document together. In either scenario, the case is invalid.

[dangel]

'mrochester', I think you are coming across rather too condescending to appear level headed or objective.

I think you should allow people to voice there opinions and put forward your argument constructively rather than worrying about how other people construct their argument.

*sigh*

Indeed. And having done a quick search I see that the whole pro-Apple thing is very much his rhetoric and that I'm therefore wasting my time.

[mrochester]

Regardless of whether Apple doctored the images or not, they are inaccurate. Which I think makes the whole case invalid. At worst, this is Apple vindictively altering the facts in order to back up their case for no-one being able to produce a tablet, ever. At best, it's a glaring oversight by whoever put the document together. In either scenario, the case is invalid.

I don't think we are quite in a position to make that judgment yet. If it was this clear cut, why was the injuction granted in the first instance, and why does it remain in Germany?

Indeed. And having done a quick search I see that the whole pro-Apple thing is very much his rhetoric and that I'm therefore wasting my time.

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me

[Smudger]

Are you saying that the images are accurate?

[dangel]

If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me

A discussion involves listening, being objective. You're not capable looking back through history of the latter (when it comes to Apple) and the former doesn't seem to be going too well either. You're just shy of being a troll on that respect - which is a shame given you seem to be articulate and intelligent enough to do better.

[mrochester]

Are you saying that the images are accurate?

Nope, that image is clearly not accurate. But it is also only one of many images that were used to form the injuction, none of which were (apparently) changed in anyway. Does a single inaccurate image make the entire case invalid? So far it seems not as the ban still remains in Germany. Does the inaccurate image have the potential to weaken Apple's position? Of course! But to what extent it does will probably be based on the intent.

A discussion involves listening, being objective. You're not capable looking back through history of the latter (when it comes to Apple) and the former doesn't seem to be going too well either. You're just shy of being a troll on that respect - which is a shame given you seem to be articulate and intelligent enough to do better.

Hmmm, I'm sorry you think that. We could just go back to post number 33 if you like where I listened to and responded to your previous post?

Actually, let me address the first post that I so hastily criticised in the first instance so that it has a proper response.

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

The explosive growth of the smartphone market was directly proceeded by the introduction of the original iPhone. I dare say that if Apple hadn't introduced the iPhone, we probably would still be playing snake and space impact on our old Nokias!

[crossy]

On the one hand we have the news that Apple may have doctored a picture in the claim they filed against Samsung. As yet, we don't know whether that is true or false as the issue has not been investigated. This can't yet look good or bad for Apple because we don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.

Hmm, that's being a little generous - afaik that one or more images in the Apple submission were "doctored" is unarguable. The decision is whether this was deliberately done to support the case, or was merely an unfortunate side-effect of assembling the documentation. I believe that Apple has sufficient morality for the change to be accidental - although I realise that this leaves me open to the charge of being naive.

A separate and unrelated issue is the temporary lifting of the ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a number of European countries (excluding Germany where the ban was first issued) due to issues surrounding whether a German court has the authority to ban a device throughout the EU. As a temporary measure, the ban has been lifted in countries where this German court may or may not have any authority until this is investigated. I assume that if it is found that the German court does have this authority, the device would be once again banned, and if it doesn't, then it will remain unbanned.

In my simple minded view of legal workings, (with due acknowledgement that others - esp Saracen - have a more correct view), I would have thought that a Europe wide ban would have to be "signed off" by some Europe-wide court.

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'd agree with that - heck I used to be quite an Apple fan, and still have just as many Apple products as Android ones. I am an iPhone refusenik - but that's more a technical choice - it's a poor fit for what I want to do. Was walking past HMV and was tempted by their current trade-in deal for new iPods - but then thought "do I really want to give them (Apple) more of my money?" to which the answer was "no", (although the idea of trading up to a new Classic still appeals). At the moment the anti-Apple groundswell is firmly entrenched in the technical community, (people like me), but it wouldn't take much for Apple's logo on something to be seen as "uncool" - which'd be a disaster for a company that relies on being "in" as much as they do. Remember the way that Porsche sales reputedly fell in the early 90's because driving one was seen as aligning with the overpaid city "bankers"?

By the way, has anyone noticed that more and more products on childrens TV - especially the US-based Nickelodeon and Disney channels - are carrying this pear-with-a-bite-out logo? Surely that's too reminiscent of Apple's logo - maybe there should be a writ launched their way?

[Hicks12]

in regards to the altered image, havent seen someone mention this but i dont think its a mistake... its shown normally unaltered in the rest of the document when it isnt side by side to show its similarities but as soon as they are doing that (having ipad/galaxy together) then they alter it to look similar, from my POV it really is deliberate and if it wasnt then why are apple spending so much on their legal department when they clearly cant make a solid case...

[crossy]

in regards to the altered image, havent seen someone mention this but i dont think its a mistake... its shown normally unaltered in the rest of the document when it isnt side by side to show its similarities but as soon as they are doing that (having ipad/galaxy together) then they alter it to look similar, from my POV it really is deliberate and if it wasnt then why are apple spending so much on their legal department when they clearly cant make a solid case...

Are the offending images side-by-side? In which case perhaps the resizing was merely to allow the two images to fit on the available page width...

I'm not trying to make excuses for Apple - if they did do this 'with malice aforethought' and the intention to misrepresent the similarities, then I'd welcome them not only getting the case thrown out, but also some sort of fine (would a deliberate attempt to misrepresent be perjury or contempt of court - I figure the former).