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 538128
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 15:36 UTC in reply to "lazy lazy lazy"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 1