This doesn't at all change the fact that Samsung infringed on Apples patents with the Galaxy tab. The aspect ratio isn't even relevant at all, even if Apple used that in their claim that the tab was infringing. Its about function, user interface, and technical specs, if the actual physical dimensions are different that doesn't automatically give samsung a get out of jail free card. The injunction should remain in place
This doesn't at all change the fact that Samsung infringed on Apples patents with the Galaxy tab. The aspect ratio isn't even relevant at all, even if Apple used that in their claim that the tab was infringing. Its about function, user interface, and technical specs, if the actual physical dimensions are different that doesn't automatically give samsung a get out of jail free card. The injunction should remain in place
Interesting how only that one picture was pointed out while the other 3 in the same series weren't. (Hint: it's the only one with wrong aspect ratio, but only because the iPad 2 next to it is also "shopped" and the reason is quite obvious: Apple is too lazy to capture a photo of the interface running on the actual devices)
TechCrunch has the whole filing:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/ap...unction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/
Nice theory, except...This doesn't at all change the fact that Samsung infringed on Apples patents with the Galaxy tab.
This doesn't at all change the fact that Samsung infringed on Apples patents with the Galaxy tab. The aspect ratio isn't even relevant at all, even if Apple used that in their claim that the tab was infringing. Its about function, user interface, and technical specs, if the actual physical dimensions are different that doesn't automatically give samsung a get out of jail free card. The injunction should remain in place
It's the most illustrative of the pictures. And clearly intentional.
Would probably be a lot more damning if the other pictures were also off, but as far as I can tell it's only that one. If you actually look at the complaint there are plenty of other side-by-side pictures where you can clearly tell that the aspect ratio is different. The text below the display doesn't say anything about the aspect ratio of the screen either.
Could be some legal trickery; could be an oversight or an idiot with Photoshop. Either way, I doubt that the entire case hinges on a single image.
Well, whichever the intention, it is obvious that the iPad 2 next to it is also a render.
Apple can still say that it's the wrong aspect ratio because it's an early render and all they'll have to do is re-submit an adjusted filing.
If I'm right, Apple only has to prove that there are similarities, even by accident, for Samsung to lose the case. They are alleging that Samsung copied the idea, not that Samsung stole the design outright.
I dunno, thats the only straight on, side by side photo. All the others are at funky angle where you cant see the sizes properly.
Actually, Apple has a patent on a specific design, that is what the injunction is in place over. The actual design patent, not some idea patent. Apple can resubmit, but if after reviewing the new submission, the judge decides that the design is different from what Apple has patented, it can throw the injunction out and force Apple to pay damages to Samsung for delaying the launch.
The actual design of the device itself seems to be under trade dress infringement rather than patent infringement unless Apple was somehow able to patent the design of pretty much any laptop computer device without a keyboard... if you know what I mean.
Trade dress infringement means Apple only has to show that the iPad's design is distinctive, or that anything with an aluminum back and a black (or white) screen in front is recognized as an iPad, and that it is possible for a Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be mistaken as an iPad.
It's actually pretty ridiculous in my opinions, though it seems like Apple still has a case regardless of that aspect ratio misdirection.
Right, but if apple had to fudge the photo to make G.Tab look like an iPad, it's an admission that it doesn't look like one in reality.