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?
Permalink for comment 537949
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1