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 538158
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1