Jordan Crook studied English literature at the University of New York before entering the tech space. Prior to joining TechCrunch Crook dabbled in mobile marketing and mobile apps, as well as doing reviews for MobileBurn and MobileMarketer. Kruk, fascinated with the production of alternative sources of energy and greentech. It is currently a writer for CrunchGear. ? Read More
Last week Apple patent brawl takes a serious turn-Samsung after Apple got a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of 10.1 tab galaxies throughout the European Union, with the exception of the Netherlands. As we have already pointed out, Samsung had no idea all this is going to issue an injunction, as is standard procedure in the German judicial system. South Korea-company knew they probably would have mentioned that evidence Apple is used to obtain the import (pictured left) ban was quite serious shortcomings.
According to Dutch IDG publication from the Webwereld. nl image used for side-by-side comparison between the iPad and 2 GalTab 10.1 is either incorrect or manipulated. On page 28 of Apple filing cropped image of the Galaxy and the ratio of the image tab 10.1 have been tampered with. Samsung tablet measures at 10.1 in x 6.9 in x 0.34 in, and the size of the iPad sports 2 in x 9.5 in x 34 7.31. in.
So if you looked at the pill-parallel (both in portrait position), you would notice that the iPad 2 is a little broader from side to side, but shorter in length. Based on the specified dimensions, proportions GalTab to 1.46. In Apple's evidence the image aspect ratio 1.36 (8 percent wider than it should be) making 10.1 's Galaxy "appearance tab" Watch "virtually identical" to the iPad 2 (which has the aspect ratio of 1.30). And this is precisely the language of the Apple in his complaint, also on page 28.
We've seen our fair share of counsel screw-ups lately, but it's pretty shady, no? The current ban on the import of the GalTab entirely due to the design, so the Court really judging these books by their covers. Introducing evidence that falsely represents the appearance of the product — especially when the injunction was based solely on hardware design is incredibly suspect, to say the least. Add to this the fact that Apple has some serious time with the judge, in providing this evidence. In the meantime, Samsung did not even have the opportunity to challenge image.
Whether or not intentional deception, "and the truth" of evidence is required in the German judicial system. On the surface it doesn't look good for Apple. It's quite possible that the image that they used GalTab is outdated preview image. Despite the fact that false testimony was presented at all makes Apple look sneaky or weak. Snweaky. In addition, this error can affect the outcome of the case, according to PC World interview with Florian Mueller, a German IP consultatnt.
Read more about this as it develops.
No comments:
Post a Comment