Last week I was saying how the German Court’s decision to grant Apple an injunction over Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 makes little sense. Just because 2 products are somewhat similar “in the same product category” doesn’t mean one should be blocked out from the market. It’s how competition works in the real world. But it seems that even they may have been misled by Apple’s legal team.
Apple’s legal team presented the German Court with “evidence” that appears to be tampered with to make the Galaxy Tab 10.1 look as similar as possible to the iPad. Not only did the Tab get stretched out on the sides, but it was almost made to look as if it had the same height as well (the Tab is actually taller). Then they went and claimed to the Court that the Tab is practically identical to the iPad.
They also didn’t let the Galaxy Tab to show its normal homescreen, but instead they opened up the app drawer to show the grid of icons, instead of a bunch of widgets as well. I guess they thought they are more likely to look the same if they did that.
When the German Court finds out about this, and I believe they will because it’s all over the web right now, and Samsung is sure to tell them, too, I don’t think they’ll be pretty happy about it, and may even accuse Apple of being in contempt of the Court.
But how did Samsung let this happen in the first place? Apparently, Samsung wasn’t allowed to see this “evidence” that Apple had, so they couldn’t use it to block the injunction. But Samsung should have a pretty strong case against Apple now, and may easily get to overturn the previous judge’s decision. It remains to be seen if Samsung will also ask Apple to pay for “damages” for affecting both Samsung’s image and their sales in the process.
Like this post? Share it!
what is your source for the “evidence” please? If Samsung wasn’t allowed to see this evidence, then how come samsung has it now? What happened?
Not a google hater/apple lover here, i’m just honestly curious. The way the article is written without citing any sources for this claim, feels kinda misleading.
Agreed. Will need some sources – the fact that this is likely to be a long and very costly legal battle, and the suggestion that Apple simply stretched Samsung’s device and presented it as “evidence” is hard to believe.
Without reading that much into the cases itself, is the size of the device an essential feature of the device? One would think not (but some may argue otherwise, citing the 7″ and 10″ variants perhaps) – I think the size of the device is the last of Samsung’s worries…
Source is listed in my previous post — a copy of one of the legal documents. Scroll to page 28 to see the first erroneous image.
Well.. From what I’ve been able to gather from various places..
Samsung was not actually represented. So couldn’t really call foul.