Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2012 12:24 UTC, submitted by henderson101
Legal "Comparing Samsung's flagship products before and after release of the iPhone & iPad, and how Apple's intellectual property infringement claims hold up." A terrible visual guide that ignores not only Samsung's own pre-iPhone designs, but also - and worse yet - the thirty-odd years of mobile computing that preceded the iPhone. Typical of today's technology world: a complete and utter lack of historical sense. Worse yet are the claims about icons: only the phone icon is similar, but Apple did not invent the green phone icon. This is a remnant of virtually all earlier phones which use a green phone icon for initiate/answer call, and a red phone icon for terminate/reject call. Claiming this deserves IP protection is beyond ridiculous, and shows just how low Apple is willing to go.
Thread beginning with comment 530152
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Pre-designs?
by BushLin on Tue 7th Aug 2012 17:26 UTC in reply to "Pre-designs?"
Member since:

"The judge blocked the details because she said the South Korean firm had tried to introduce them too late into the legal process."


Before going on a rant, it might have been an idea to check the facts.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Pre-designs?
by henderson101 on Wed 8th Aug 2012 12:39 in reply to "RE: Pre-designs?"
henderson101 Member since:

Yes - she threw then out. It was widely publicised. She then also then tore a strip off of Samsung for making those details public to the press. These are both facts. Your point? If the evidence was so vital as they claim, why did they bring it up so late in the process? Desperation and playing dirty. Samsung are not the innocent party in this. Neither are.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Pre-designs?
by BushLin on Wed 8th Aug 2012 18:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Pre-designs?"
BushLin Member since:

My point is simply that your outburst focuses purely on the fact the evidence in question wasn't allowed to be used in the case, or as you put it:

"Ah, yeah, those designs that were thrown out of court. Riiight! The ones Samsung then got a tounge-lashing from the judge for when they leaked them to the press. The judge that Samsung apologists claim is biased, even though she refused both evidence..."

Your argument suggests that the evidence is somehow false and/or malicious but it was simply submitted too late for it to be considered during the case. You appear to have deliberately left this crucial detail out to make a false point.

For those not in the legal profession, looking from the outside; that evidence is still very much relevant to getting an idea of how much Samsung based their handsets on the iPhone.

BTW, demanding balance while making disingenuous statements is often seen as hypercritical and undermines your claims.

Reply Parent Score: 2