Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530256
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Apple is not on trial
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:19 UTC in reply to "Apple is not on trial"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

To the point of saying the translation of the documents need to be looked at (Like the original wont be in court to be re-translated if needed)


Uh, no. I am a translator myself, and I know just how easy it is - without knowing it - to muck up things like tenses or voices, especially with languages as disparate as English and Korean. Considering how important this document is, and looking at it from my professional experience, this is a VERY valid concern - especially if Apple translated it itself (instead of having a third party do so).

Edited 2012-08-08 11:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

[q]Uh, no. I am a translator myself, and I know just how easy it is - without knowing it - to muck up things like tenses or voices, especially with languages as disparate as English and Korean. Considering how important this document is, and looking at it from my professional experience, this is a VERY valid concern - especially if Apple translated it itself (instead of having a third party do so).


I am hoping that the court would not admit the document on a "It looks interesting" basis and not check the validity of the document first.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple is not on trial
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th Aug 2012 21:35 in reply to "RE: Apple is not on trial"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"To the point of saying the translation of the documents need to be looked at (Like the original wont be in court to be re-translated if needed)


Uh, no. I am a translator myself, and I know just how easy it is - without knowing it - to muck up things like tenses or voices, especially with languages as disparate as English and Korean. Considering how important this document is, and looking at it from my professional experience, this is a VERY valid concern - especially if Apple translated it itself (instead of having a third party do so).
"


OK Thom let's leave the translation issue to one side and assume that if the translation is problematic then Samsung will pick that up and deal with it themselves in court.

Lets get to the meat of the issue. If we take this document at face value what do you think of it? What does it reveal about Samsung's approach to product design? These are worthwhile questions to pose and ones you should answer.

Reply Parent Score: 2