Apple's European Galaxy tab ban evidence seriously Misleading ... As in the False

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.

View the original article here

Qualcomm Snapdragon overhauls brand ditches misleading names chipset

Greg Kumparak — editor of MobileCrunch.com, the mobile industry blog TechCrunch network. Greg writing for TechCrunch network since May 2008. Greg was born in the vicinity of San Jose, California and currently lives in East Bay. ? Read More

If you have a Smartphone, made over the last year or so that are not made by Apple or Samsung, likely preeeetty, well that is powered by a Snapdragon chipset Qualcomm's. Now, the chances that you actually could call what chipset Snapdragon he has ... Yes, pretty much zilch.

Problem: outside of the main brand "Snapdragon", Qualcomm has not done the best job in the differentiation of what chipset is which. MSM8260? MSM855T? MSM8930? OMGWTFBBQ? I am doing this for my work, and I still won't be able to tell you that one who cheat sheets.

This morning, Qualcomm announced a major overhaul with snapdragon brand. It should make things a little less confusing.

In short, they are almost impossible to remember the numbers of models and multilevel. They will have four tiers (or "system" as they call them) to begin with: S1, S2, S3 and S4. The higher the number the better specification.

S1, for example, is for the "Mass Market" phones — things on the lower end of what powers Qualcomm (anything 1 GHz and below). Things like the HTC Droid incredible or status. S2 is the good universities Guide for high-performance smart phones & tablets (1.4 GHz) as HTC Thunder, while S3 is intended for current high end stuff (1.5 GHz) as EVO 3D.

S4 encapsulates everything between 1.6 GHz and 2.5 Ghz — which, as you know, does not include actually anything just yet. The first devices in this range does not start, hitting shelves until next year as soon as possible.

Interestingly, Qualcomm said that the device will always be treated as device S2 S2-S2 is S1, S3 is S2, etc as I understand it, it sounds like Qualcomm plans to simply add new levels of system as time goes on. Man S10 is going to be funny.

Qualcomm will almost certainly have a big ol' ugly model numbers in one way or another for mega geeks among us to distinguish between similar tables — they just do not expect anyone to actually remember them.

Here's a look at what's changed:

Old and Busted:

New Hotness:

In July 1985, seven industry veterans came together in den Dr. Irwin Jacobs San Diego home to discuss the idea. These visionaries — Franklin Antonio, Adelia Coffman, Andrew Cohen, ...

Read More

View the original article here