Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:38 UTC, submitted by tupp
Thread beginning with comment 529103
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by henderson101
by henderson101 on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 13:11
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by henderson101"
RE[3]: Comment by henderson101
by BushLin on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 16:24
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by henderson101"




Member since:
2006-05-30
Those are irrelevant since they don't prove anything.
"
Really? Well, as Samsung just got slammed by the judge for releasing all of the above to the press - because they were deemed inadmissible in court, I really don't see how any of your ambulance chasing is particularly helpful.
Yep. They did. It's pretty clear they have far less evidence that is admissible in court to back up the opposite claim. Or are you calling the judge a liar?
Cherry pick your standards. *clapping hands* so classy. Of course, the iPod classic didn't exist back then. And it doesn't have a similar form factor. And of course, the fact that Samsung have been documented in the press stating that they were enamoured with Apple's designs and were trying to emulate them, well that's just lies too, right?
I'm indeed biased. "
There you go people. Nothing more to see here. Move along. Right/wrong, who gives a fcuk. So long as Thom gets to argue and feel superior. Seriously, grow up. This is still two companies trying to win a dick waving contest, plain and simple. Neither deserves to win. One is being a bully, one is being a clone. Neither deserve to benefit from any of this. But as a journalist, either grow some balls and be unbiased or get someone else to write stories you have an emotional attachment to.