But now I have to agree with acangiano that this case needs to be thrown out. If it's intentional then it's despicable (and I would say unnecessary) and if it's by accident then it's extremely negligent. Either way Apple has really fucked this up. If they really thought they had a leg to stand on they shouldn't have tried to mislead anyone or should have taken more care to get it right.
>All I see so far is Samsung building devices that are identical to Apple modulo the screens they're able to source. This may be exactly Apple's point.
And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'? All this in a court filing.
Lets be honest here, if this was MS in place of Apple, everyone would be screaming bloody murder.
From the article: "The aspect ratio has not been measurably altered".
> And there is no better way to project that point except by making the screens look exactly the same size without a note saying 'scaled size to show similarities'?
Apple noted in the text of the filing that the sizes are actually different.
By resizing they indicate that the devices are more similar than they actually are. I don't even think a note that says the Samsung device is resized would be acceptable, they should simply make a fair comparison.
I have been defending Apple on this till now even after the first doctored photo debacle. No more, no way. They are in the wrong without question.
If Apple's point is "Samsung copies our design slavishly" and the defense is "wait, ours may look identical, but it's 6% larger", then good luck with that.
All I see so far is Samsung building devices that are identical to Apple modulo the screens they're able to source. This may be exactly Apple's point.