Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:52 PM EDT |
I am not surprised the judge got mad about this. It's not as if Apple has
doctored pictures, say by changing aspect ratios or size. Oh wait...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
If Samsung suspects tampering, it's easy enough to prove.
Most phones have a reset to factory setting option. Hitting that function should
reset any modifications. I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of that
argument. also, that function may be buried in a supervisor menu, only available
from one of those handy devices that cell distributors do to set up a phone. I
bet Samsung will have no problem finding one of those.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
It's obviously not malice simply because any law firm on QE's level would
realise a fake picture would be absurdly risky... so what on earth were they
playing at here? Why mispresent what/when the image was?
As far as I can recall they're even partially *right* in that Apple got called
out a while back (can't remember any source sorry - was it an ITC complaint?)
for moving icons round and photoshopping aspect ratios etc to make samsung
products look more like iStuff. Given the outcome here I guess Apple didn't
pull that stunt with the phone in question, but what on earth are QE doing?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|