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 538160
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:27 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 Parent Score: 1