Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 22:11 UTC
Legal Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers. It's pretty damning. Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone. With the unredacted, full documents without Apple's deletions in hand, a completely different picture emerges: Samsung's designers are told to be as different and creative as possible. There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed. Instead, it says this: "designers rightly must make their own designs with conviction and confidence; do not strive to do designs to please me (the president); instead make designs with faces that are creative and diverse." I guess my initial scepticism about the documents was not uncalled for. What do you know - lawyers twist and turn the truth. Shocker, huh?
Order by: Score:
v Hmm... Are Samsung's lawyers so incompetent
by MollyC on Mon 8th Oct 2012 22:41 UTC
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No. Please read.

The Court, the jury, the lawyers -- all had and have the unredacted documents. Groklaw is making a mountain out of a molehill and a very un-legal argument.

Thom's explanation is very poor: Apple didn't edit Samsung documents like a ransom note and present that as evidence.

The documents were argued over as a legal matter, Samsung had their say, the Judge had her say, and they were submitted to the jury. Apple's lawyers then selectively quoted them and the media misquoted them. That's it. Nothing illegal or heinous or shady.

Edited 2012-10-08 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right, because dry legal documents are clearly just as powerful as a lawyer's arguments.

It's clear from these unsealed documents that the story Apple's lawyers told the judge, jury, and media - namely, that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order - was bullshit. Made up. A fairy tale.

That's scummy. Of course, it's just regular lawyer stuff - but we still have a right to the truth - and it's clearly not on Apple's side.

Reply Score: 11

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

(At least PJ is honest enough to air-quote "proof" and "copying". She's waging a far more subtle propaganda.)


design principles that Apple has embodied for 35+ years...


As opposed to the blatant propaganda Apple produces that you've been taken hook, line and sinker.

Reply Score: 12

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Read FULL text. CARRIERS TOLD SAMSUNG THAT THEY LIKE IPHONE.

In other words, boss stated that iOS/iPhone is DE FACTO standard in UX, by witch Samsung UX will be judged.

But if you compare lines that cover "creativity" and those that compare to "iOS/iPhone" you get clear picture.

We are here (UX that do not sell). We ARE judged against iPhone. Give me something good, easy to use, and creative.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14


(It's like a mob leader asking for a hit: "I'd hate to see anything happen to him. If he would just go away, that would solve our problem. But I wouldn't want him dead. Now, how are you going to solve our problem?" --Objection, that can't be submitted as evidence of ordering a murder! To the contrary, it's evidence that he wanted him alive!)


That wouldn't be grounds for not admitting the evidence, but it would be the defences argument about how to interpret the evidence. Legal trials do not reach the same level of proof as mathematics.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Agreed. I'm not speaking to the legal merits of the document contents. I'm speaking to the argument put forth by PJ and Thom as being weak ("it doesn't encourage copying, it encourages Samsung being unique and design-focused!" -- nonsense).

Reply Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I am confused. Are you saying something about some documents or are you saying something about what Samsung actually did?

If the latter are you saying that Samsung did not try to make their products look and work like Apple's down to and including the packaging, peripherals and retails stores? Perhaps you think that so many Samsung's designs, products, packaging, peripherals and retails stores all look uncannily like Apple's because of an accident or because of coincidence. Is it really too hard for you believe that a company as ruthlessly focussed (and I mean that in a good sense) as Samsung decided that it had to stick with Apple as closely as possible in a market that seemed to be reeling from one massive change to another so quickly and in which only Apple seemed to have the key to making big profits?

Personally I think it made a lot of sense for Samsung to do what it did when the iPhone disruption hit the smart phone market , i.e. copy Apple's products and playbook as closely as possible. It worked. As a result Samsung carved out a large and profitable market for itself and established itself as the main player in the Android phone market. The other Android OEMs floundered, and continue to largely flounder, in Samsung's wake. Samsung played the let's 'copy Apple card' and as a result have established themselves as the high profile Android OEM big hitter, they have got a legal slap on the wrist as result (is anyone really surprised?) but it was worth it from their point of view. Now they can try to differentiate their products from Apple's and we will see how good their designs are. There are rumours that they are working with Google on new tablet to go after the iPad.

I find the outrage and indignation about all this hard to fathom. Apple came up with a game changer with the original iPhone. It left the phone OEMs reeling as they had been churning out at best mediocre design for years and now suddenly they have to embrace a new design paradigm, a new OS in Android and try to catch Apple in terms of brand awareness and design quality. The most ruthless about responding to the iPhone was Samsung, they did the only thing that was open to them in the short term in order to avoid being left permanently behind which was too mimic Apple as closely as possible. They pushed that strategy hard as far as they could go until they got busted. Is any of this surprising or news to anyone? Does anybody think Samsung or Apple would have been better served by doing anything different.

So now post trial the Android OEMs like Samsung have to avoid making their stuff too blatantly like Apple's - so what?

Reply Score: 2

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Do you have any proof that "misquoting" was beeing done on the "media" side?

All quotes I have seen copy letter by letter Apple redacted text.

So if "Media" misquoted, by providing EXACT text as Apple, but apple did not misquoted, than you fail on basic logic.

Reply Score: 3

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You are mistaken if you think I'm referring to this piece or PJ's at Groklaw's. I'm referring to PJ's flase claim that Apple views this document as "proof." She suggests that the media presented this document as proof. It's her assertion, not mine.

Reply Score: 1

Damning? Silly really.
by jared_wilkes on Mon 8th Oct 2012 23:00 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

The mistakes being made by groklaw are:

1) acting as if the entirety of the document wasn't presented to the Court as evidence.

2) portraying the submission of this document and selective quoting of it as Apple's "proof" that Samsung "copied the iPhone" [Remember: Samsung also portrayed itself as a design power house that already had designs comparable to the iPhone and that its current products are descendant from those designs and that anything remotely similar to Apple's designs was mere coincidence or necessity. The greatest import of the document is the design crisis, the need to respond to Apple, to change their ways. Whether by being different or copying.]

3) depicting the submitted documents and quotes (as filtered through an uneducated media) as something that is false, illegal, or dastardly [What? The lawyers selectively quoted from evidentiary documents? Oh my!] and, hence, the entire verdict is suspect and invalid.

Edited 2012-10-08 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Mon 8th Oct 2012 23:16 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

As always, Groklaws discovers that secret conspirancy that the judge, lawyers and the jury overlook.

Edited 2012-10-08 23:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

different
by oper on Mon 8th Oct 2012 23:32 UTC
oper
Member since:
2012-08-30

to be as different and creative as possible

"As possible", because sometimes, instead of being creative and different just for the sake of it, it's better to choose the better ways for people, even if some of those ways already existed.

Reply Score: 1

context
by arb1 on Tue 9th Oct 2012 00:00 UTC
arb1
Member since:
2011-08-19

Welcome to taken outta context. Political parties been doing it since day 1.

As for jury had full document yea they probably did but they being apple home city jury only focused on what apple present outta those documents they for sure in 21 hours didn't read any of them.

Edited 2012-10-09 00:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

bullshit
by kristoph on Tue 9th Oct 2012 01:11 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The question of whether of not Samsung actually gave 'an order' to copy anything is a matter of conjecture.

The FACT is that they produced a giant document which had a side by side comparison of a current Samsung device and an iPhone and suggested - in writing - that specific functionality should be effectively replicated.

You can argue that they were being 'inspired' by the iPhone or some shit like that but the FACT is that they followed some of those recommendations so someone had to given an 'order' to do that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: bullshit
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2012 08:22 UTC in reply to "bullshit"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The FACT is that they produced a giant document which had a side by side comparison of a current Samsung device and an iPhone and suggested - in writing - that specific functionality should be effectively replicated.


Uh, no. You clearly didn't look at the document at all. It's a comparison. With suggestions. Nothing about whether or not they were implemented - and to boot, many of the suggestions were not "copy the iPhone", but something like "make it more lively" or other vague shit like that.

The fact that Apple's lawyers have not produced a document which details which of these suggestions were implemented and in what way tells you all you need to know.

Reply Score: 5

No Surprise
by Lorin on Tue 9th Oct 2012 03:01 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Coming from Apple, I am not at all surprised, they are the same company that used Photoshop or something else to alter the aspect ratios of iPAD vs Galaxy Tab pictures to make them look like a copy in the German courts.

Reply Score: 13

RE: No Surprise
by 1c3d0g on Tue 9th Oct 2012 03:48 UTC in reply to "No Surprise "
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Damn right. Suddenly everyone conveniently forgot (or developed temporary amnesia) that rotten Apple fiasco. What a bunch of greedy liars.

Reply Score: 8

v RE[2]: No Surprise
by jared_wilkes on Tue 9th Oct 2012 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE: No Surprise "
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers.


When did Apple claim "Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers"? I would love to see this "quote."

Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone.


Now they "made it seem" Samsung designers "were ordered to copy the iPhone." When did Apple make it seem there was an order to copy the iPhone? I followed the trial; I was never under this impression. Please provide a quote.

There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed.


You've now claimed Apple claimed there was a "copy the iPhone" order 3 times now in nearly as many sentences. Please point me to a quote or any document which even remotely makes it appear there was an order to copy?

Who is being "selective" and "actively deleting" to "make it seem as if" something else is the truth?

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Go back and read the documents Apple filed. They left out a whole bunch of stuff to focus on only a few lines, most prominently this one:

"I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone."

Pretty damning, right?

That was said by a Samsung guy, but if you read this in its context, which Apple ignored, it's suddenly something else entirely. And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.

We now know it was all lies. Stuff Apple made up on the spot. That's progress. It's fascinating that it's impossible for you to admit that Apple's lawyers have been caught with their pants down. Then again, you people are still defending the jury foreman, so no surprises here.

Edited 2012-10-09 08:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

Then again, you people are still defending the jury foreman, so no surprises here.


What do you mean, "you people"!?

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

What do YOU mean, "you people??"

Reply Score: 4

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I think he means to quote Thom saying, "you people."

Reply Score: 2

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Actually, he's making a reference to Tropic Thunder.

Reply Score: 2

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Sounds more like you're reading a bit too much into the original comment based on your own personal bias. At least the punctuation on the previous comment leads one to believe that he too was making a joke.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I know Morgan is diverting away from the previous commenters question posed to Thom by making a weak joke/reference.



Not diverting, just continuing the joke. ;) You know, every now and then people on here break out of their serious modes and crack a funny. It's not against the rules; if it were there wouldn't be a "+1 Funny" mod option.

And now back to our regularly scheduled humdrummery.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, Apple didn't leave out parts of the document. The document was sealed. The document was viewed by all court participants in its entirety. Apple quoted the portion of the document that it thought was relevent to the case and was going to use in cross-examination. Here's Apple's statement:

Similarly, an email chain sourced to Designer Custodian Jeeyeun Wang summarizes a February 2010 meeting between the Head of Samsung’s Mobile Communication Division on Design and numerous Samsung designers, including Minhyouk Lee, Yunjung Lee, and Jinsoo Kim. (Chung Decl. Ex. H at SAMNDCA10247377.) The Head of Samsung’s Mobile Division strongly criticized the design of Samsung’s current phones and, at the same time, praised the iPhone design:


There is no law that says whenever quoting a document submitted to the Court you need to quote the entire thing. Suggesting so is just pure stupidity.

Reply Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.


This is the fourth time you've said this, and this time you've clearly asserted there is a quote. Please provide this quote where Apple states there was an order to copy the iPhone and that this document is proof of it, please.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.


This is the fourth time you've said this, and this time you've clearly asserted there is a quote. Please provide this quote where Apple states there was an order to copy the iPhone and that this document is proof of it, please.
"

Are you intentionally being silly or are you really that ignorant?

Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?

If so, I - and I imagine the rest of the world, including Apple itself - would love to know which reasons they are.

Reply Score: 4

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Are you intentionally being silly or are you really that ignorant?

Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?


And? It's you who is being silly. You have claimed that this document has been presented as proof of a copy order. This is quite specific and different from the purpose of the ENTIRE CASE. You've claimed there are specific comments by Apple lawyers suggesting that this document was presented as proof of a copy order. You didn't claim that Apple sued for copyright, patent, and trade dress infringement; you didn't claim that this was the reason for the trial on such charges. You claim Apple presented this document as proof of an order to copy the iPhone. You claim they made specific statements saying exactly that. You cannot provide any quotes of any such statements because they do not exist.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, I think you really have no understanding of what this court case is all about. Apple is arguing that not only did Samsung copy Apple - but it did so *wilfully*. Wilfully means that it was done *on purpose*. In other words, that someone inside Samsung said "copy the iPhone" (that's what trade dress is - the entire appearance). Apple's lawyers have hammered on about wilfulness all through the court proceedings and their filings - and this document, as well as the side-by-side comparison - was used to strengthen Apple's argument that Samsung acted wilfully.

This is all quite basic stuff.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It's also quite basic that the entirety of the evidence, the arguments made, and the law determine the proof.

You are quite specifically arguing (or rather were) that Apple claims this specific document is proof of a copy order. You said it at least 4 times and then went on to suggest there are several quotes by Apple lawyers claiming so ("you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.") But you can't provide any of this specific talk.

But now you claim merely bringing a copyright, patent, trade dress infringment claim against someone implies (?) that evidence (any and all?) will prove those claims based on documenting a direct order?

Nonsense.

I fully understand that Apple's intent and goal was to legally prove that Samsung violated Apple's valid copyright, patent, and trade dress rights. I wholly reject the notion that because of this intention, this means these documents must directly prove there was a direct order to copy the iPhone. Do you see how those 2 statements are consistent? Do you see how trying to claim the second (not the rejection of it, but the inverse) logically flows from the former is completely untenable?

Again, you've claimed innumerable times that Apple lawyers have presented this document of proof of an order to copy, but you cannot provide any such quote.

Reply Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also... Just plain NO.

Going for willful infringement does not mean that you have to provide documentary evidence of a direct order to explicitly copy. Nor does the intent to prove willful infringment carry with it the claim that you can provide evidence of such an order.

Please don't make up US law or provide your version of what you'd like it to be for us, Thom.

Reply Score: 2

v The proof is in the pudding
by bansal98 on Tue 9th Oct 2012 03:49 UTC
RE: The proof is in the pudding
by unclefester on Tue 9th Oct 2012 05:42 UTC in reply to "The proof is in the pudding"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You're an idiot. The two phones don't even look similar when viewed side by side.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The proof is in the pudding
by Sauron on Tue 9th Oct 2012 08:35 UTC in reply to "The proof is in the pudding"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

What does it matter what is there in the document. Wasn't it plainly clear by looking at Samsung Galaxy S that it was a deliberate attempt to copy iPhone? It was not only the phone itself; even the packaging and charger design etc were copied from Apple. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.


Hey! I just Rep-Rapped a rectangle with rounded corners, better leg it before the Apple Lawyers turn up huh?

Reply Score: 1

RE: The proof is in the pudding
by aldo on Tue 9th Oct 2012 16:16 UTC in reply to "The proof is in the pudding"
aldo Member since:
2010-02-17

What does it matter what is there in the document. Wasn't it plainly clear by looking at Samsung Galaxy S that it was a deliberate attempt to copy iPhone?


Isn't the document in question a response to the perceived failings of the Galaxy S when compared to the iPhone?

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No. This meeting was in February of 2010, a month before the launch of the Samsung Galaxy S. The Galaxy S was certainly already developed but there was no audience response of "perceived failings." What is being accused is that the Galaxy S is the first phone that takes this new direction, not that it comparably fails to hold up to the iPhone as previous generations of Samsung products between 2007 and 2010.

Edited 2012-10-09 16:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

aldo Member since:
2010-02-17

No. This meeting was in February of 2010, a month before the launch of the Samsung Galaxy S. The Galaxy S was certainly already developed but there was no audience response of "perceived failings." What is being accused is that the Galaxy S is the first phone that takes this new direction, not that it comparably fails to hold up to the iPhone as previous generations of Samsung products between 2007 and 2010.


I've just checked and the document Thom's talking about is the comparison between the Galaxy S and the iPhone that I was thinking of.

So what's being claimed by the Apple crowd is that the copycat phone was produced before the document that urged the development of the copycat phone...

The result of the document is presumably the Galaxy S2 - not a copy of the iPhone and the phone that catapulted Samsung to Android domination.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

So what's being claimed by the Apple crowd is that the copycat phone was produced before the document that urged the development of the copycat phone...


No, "the anti-Apple crowd" is claiming that this document is Apple's proof that Samsung issued a command to copy (or at least this is Thom's claim -- PJ's claim is more nuanced).

The Apple crowd is claiming that this document was submitted as one piece of evidence among many other pieces of evidence contributing to a legal argument and narrative that demonstrates that Samsung did not have designs (particularly UX) that were obviously or coincidentally like the iPhone prior to 2010 and certainly not prior to the iPhone.

Edited 2012-10-09 16:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The proof is in the pudding
by aldo on Wed 10th Oct 2012 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The proof is in the pudding"
aldo Member since:
2010-02-17

Jared, I've read enough about the case and seen enough online comment to know that this document - the post-Galaxy S comparison to the iPhone - was seen by the Apple faithful as the smoking gun. It's the "proof" that Samsung slavishly copied Apple. Only it actually post-dates the actual copycat phone and is relevant to the development of the Galaxy S2.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

This document? Have you read either of these stories? Neither is referencing the iPhone v. Galaxy comparison but rather the minutes from the design meeting in Feb. 2010.

By posting that you've read stuff, you've demonstrated that you haven't been reading.

Reply Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Further proof, that your "reading" doesn't demonstrate anything but poor reading comprehension: who has said anything about whether some Apple fans on a website have said some stupid stuff or not? Thom and PJ are claiming this is claimed by Apple directly.

Reply Score: 2

mixed news
by siraf72 on Tue 9th Oct 2012 08:32 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

On the one hand I'm quite relieved to see that there wasn't a corporate strategy to copy the iPhone. So I guess that's good news.

On the other hand, you do have to wonder about the creativity of Samsung designers. To me it looks like they copied the iPhone pure and simple. Nothing very "creative and diverse".

Reply Score: 3

Not good at following orders
by bowkota on Tue 9th Oct 2012 09:59 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

If the orders from the boss were to make something much different to the iPhone they clearly failed. The first phones converged much more towards the iPhone than they diverged. And it wasn't even limited to the phone and the OS itself; it went on to packaging, advertising and retail design.

At some point they realised that making cheap plastic phones with 4.5 inch screens are much easier to make (more volume for battery, easier to cramp every component inside) and it was the only way they could differentiate from the iPhone so they went down that road.

When it comes to twisting the facts leave it to Groklaw and Thom; they seem just as competent (if not more) than most lawyers.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 9th Oct 2012 13:21 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm kind of surprised some people think lawyers spend their time finding the truth. It's a lawyers job to defend his client's interests.

It's not that bad if they make stuff up, let them, because stuff that isn't true is much easier to debunk than stuff that is.

You're not guilty until proven so beyond any reasonable doubt. If Apple's lawyers raised stuff that wasn't true or out of context it should be easy for Samsung's legal team to disprove it or at least raise some doubt.

To me is seemed Apple put in much more effort in to their case and had much better lawyers than Samsung did. Had Samsung done a better they could have raised enough doubt to win it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Tue 9th Oct 2012 15:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14


You're not guilty until proven so beyond any reasonable doubt.


While this might vary by country, in the US where this court case took place the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard only applies to criminal cases. Civil cases such as this one use the comparatively much more lax "preponderence of evidence" standard, which is a significantly lower bar to hit.

Edited 2012-10-09 15:27 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Another rip off
by Janvl on Tue 9th Oct 2012 19:47 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

Did you know AEG ripped off Miele?

THEY COPIED THE WASHINGMASCHINE!!!!

What do say about that?

BTW Mr. Swash there are plenty more of these ripp-offs!

@ Thom
I had hoped for more character from you, buying apple means supporting a patent-troll.

Edited 2012-10-09 19:51 UTC

Reply Score: 5

lazy lazy lazy
by TechGeek on Tue 9th Oct 2012 23:32 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Apple did indeed claim that Samsung's own documents are proof of its intent to copy the design. Apple filing 1323 found here:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/can...

Page 16, Line 20:

"Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features so that it could compete with Apple. In September 2007, Samsung concluded that the iPhone’s “beautiful design” and “[e]asy and intuitive” user interface could make it as successful as the iPod, which captured 75% of the global MP player market in
just five years. (PX34 at 38.) Samsung concluded that it “will have to compete with the iPhone in whatever way,” and that the iPhone’s hardware is “easily copied, including its “Touch Screen UI.” (Id. at 37.)"

Reply Score: 6

RE: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 06:01 UTC in reply to "lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thanks for the individual filing, but of course this was the case.

Let's see if Jared apologises. I highly doubt so, but I've been wrong before.

Reply Score: 1

RE: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 15:36 UTC in reply to "lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

This statement is more in accord with everything I said than what Thom has been saying.

It points to the entirety of the Samsung documents. It states that the docs outline an overall strategy. It never says proves. It quotes other docs besides the 2 cited by Thom and PJ (dating from 2007 rather than the 2010 meeting minutes documents).

Or are you suggesting that legal representation should be required to not have faith in their own arguments?

I see nothing hear claiming that the particular minutes from the design meeting are proof that Samsung issued a "copy the iPhone order."

But I do appreciate that you did the work, unlike Thom and PJ, who are being awfully and hypocritically selective about quoting in posts about selective quoting.

Edited 2012-10-10 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You sound like one of those people who keep asking for ever more missing links between ape and man. Each time a new link is found, you shift the goalposts and demand yet another link. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fascinating.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by MOS6510 on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think he's pretty clear what he wants, but you keep presenting him with other stuff.

To use your example: Jared wants to see a man, while you keep bringing him apes saying "it looks a bit like a modern human, so it must be one".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Thom has brought me absolutely nothing but his personal views, insults, and trolling.

I would be very happy if he would do half of what the other commenter provided. (Which I do appreciate and thanked him for.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lazy lazy lazy
by MOS6510 on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, join the club.

I'm not kidding that it shouldn't even be too difficult to make a Thom simulator as he has a number of discussion "tactics" he tends to use. It might be fun to put them on-line and number them.

I think he's a smart guy and thus he probably does understand you, he just doesn't want to admit he's wrong. The value of this site would increase a lot if he stopped presenting personal believes and even wishes as facts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And your trolling reaches new heights. Each new link? One commenter posted one. And that statement agrees with everything I have said and doesn't even reference the documents in question. But you managed to be insulting so that's a point for you (by Fandroid rules, I suppose).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I present to you Apple's selective quoting to make it seem as if a Samsung exec ordered its designers to copy the iPhone: you dismiss it.

I explain to you that Apple has been hammering on about 'wilfulness' which intrinsically means that it Samsung copied the iPhone *on purpose*, and thus that someone must have given the order to do so. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of wilfulness and dismiss it.

Another commenter then presents the following line, in which Apple literally argues that Samsung had a plan to copy the iPhone:

"Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features [...]"


And you still insist Apple did not argue Samsung gave a copy order? What, is Samsung some sort of collective hivemind whose individual members all magically come up with the same ideas without executives calling the shots?

This is so incredibly crazy. We've given you everything you asked for and more, and yet you continue to ask for more 'proof'. Yes, this is EXACTLY like people asking for ever more missing links - and that's not trolling, it's a pointy simile to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

Edited 2012-10-10 16:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I present to you Apple's selective quoting to make it seem as if a Samsung exec ordered its designers to copy the iPhone: you dismiss it.


There is nothing wrong with selective quoting. And it is your assertion that Apple claims this document is proof of a "Copy the iPhone" order that is in question.

I explain to you that Apple has been hammering on about 'wilfulness' which intrinsically means that it Samsung copied the iPhone *on purpose*, and thus that someone must have given the order to do so. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of wilfulness and dismiss it.


You do not understand willful infringement. There does not need to be proof of an order whatsoever. There needs to be a demonstration of a knowledge of the patents and a willingness to continue to potentially infringe them. You will not find any legal citation claiming that direct proof of an order to copy a product is the requirement for willfulness.

Another commenter then presents the following line, in which Apple literally argues that Samsung had a plan to copy the iPhone:

""Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features [...]"


And you still insist Apple did not argue Samsung gave a copy order?
"

Yes, a quote states that the entirety of Samsung's documents show a plan to copy the iPhone. This is not equivalent to claiming that a specific document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone. This is not the equivalent of Apple claiming it proved anything.

What, is Samsung some sort of collective hivemind whose individual members all magically come up with the same ideas without executives calling the shots?


I'm not sure what you think such a question demonstrates unless you are under the misguided belief that Apple had to prove there was a direct order to copy the iPhone and that said document was claimed by Apple. But neither is the case.

This is so incredibly crazy. We've given you everything you asked for and more, and yet you continue to ask for more 'proof'.


I've asked you to provide a single quote in which Apple claims the documents in question proves a direct order to copy the iPhone. You haven't even attempted to quote Apple once. You have giving me NOTHING. You haven't even attempted to quote Apple once. You have just claimed for yourself what Apple thinks, acts on, and states -- out of your own imagination. Please quote Apple. This is all I ask.

Yes, this is EXACTLY like people asking for ever more missing links - and that's not trolling, it's a pointy simile to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.



I've merely asked for a quote that would remotely demonstrate your strongly asserted false claim. You've provided zero evidence to support that claim.

Edited 2012-10-10 16:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I give up. You clearly refuse to accept the presented clear and cut evidence that Apple argued Samsung gave a copy order. We've given you numerous pieces of evidence, and instead of just admitting you were wrong, you now even attribute things to me I never claimed in the first place. For instance, I never said this:

"This is not equivalent to claiming that a specific document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone."

Funnily enough, you actually admit that I was right one sentence earlier:

"Yes, a quote states that the entirety of Samsung's documents show a plan to copy the iPhone."

That is actually exactly what my claim was. So, it turns out you do actually admit you were wrong. Good.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You clearly have a very juvenile understanding of US law if you think I've ever agreed with you in this discussion.


(What f'in' evidence have you provided to support the claim that Apple claims Samsung issued an order to copy the iPhone? Your complete misunderstanding of willfulness? Is that your evidence?)

However, if you are now claiming, that Apple's legal representation argued that the entirety of the evidence presented demonstrated that Samsung violated its patents, copyrights, and trade dress, sure, I agree with you. (None of your statements sound like this. This sounds like: hey, did you know that Apple sued Samsung and thinks it has a case?)

Of course, if that is your claim, pointing to a selective quote from one document certainly doesn't disprove it.

Edited 2012-10-10 17:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I'd also have to question your comprehension of English as well, but I know you are just trolling, if you find these two sentences to be the same:

This is not equivalent to claiming that a specific document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone.

Yes, a quote states that the entirety of Samsung's documents show a plan to copy the iPhone.


Huh? Saying the entirety of the evidence shows a plan to copy is the same as stating one document specifically presents a direct order to copy? Really?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by Bennie on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

Semantics Jared. It indeed says "it shows" instead of "it proves". But it's just the same. And indeed maybe they (Apple) did not say something specific about the 2010 document, but more about all presented docs, but at least you could just agree with Thom that this 2010 document at least did not show/prove anything that Samsung was trying to copy the iPhone. What you're now doing is bashing the messenger. Quiet typical for internet jockeys on a damage control crusade.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, I do not agree. Again, I do not accept PJ's and Thom's initial premise: that anyone is claiming that these two documents on their own are the sole basis for any conclusion. But I think these two documents point towards (and contribute to, in addition to numerous other pieces of evidence) several crucial points necessary to Apple's narrative and arguments and towards a successful verdict:

That Samsung's design prowess was hugely lacking and they needed to alter course.

That Samsung saw the principles exemplified by Apple's UX as the desirable traits that would determine market success.

That Samsung's own leadership understood that the consumer's found Apple's iPhone experience superior to what they were providing.

And numerous other points which Samsung attempted to claim were not true...

Again, I do not take one document or one quote out of context and claim that it does or does not prove anything. (I actually accept that most evidence and witnesses can and will present pros and cons for each case, that they may be contradictory or vague, but that when judged in light of all other evidence, a truth can be discerned.) Again, I take issue with PJ's and Thom's attempt to portray Apple's legal defense as unsavory (the documents in question were argued over copiously by Apple and Samsung and the Judge; Samsung could have put the executives responsible for this meeting on the stand to testify in rebuttal if they had as much faith in the true nature of this meeting as Thom and PJ do -- instead they sent underlings), etc... And I take issue with the claim that these specific documents were relied upon to prove a particular point and that this has now been disproven. Thom and PJ are miles away from any such thing.

Edited 2012-10-10 17:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by TechGeek on Thu 11th Oct 2012 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

If you read all of the documents in the case, you will get a pretty decent picture of Samsung's actions. The CEO of Samsung specifically said they shouldn't be copying Apple, they should be looking beyond what Apple is doing now. Apple's lawyers used a lot of quotes out of context and half truths to tell their story. Samsung's lawyers did a bad job (at least IMHO) but that doesn't make what Apple said actually true.

Reply Score: 3