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?
Thread beginning with comment 537864
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hmm... Are Samsung's lawyers so incompetent
by MollyC on Mon 8th Oct 2012 22:41 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

that they allowed Apple to present redacted Samsung documents as "evidence" unrefuted, when all Samsung's lawyers had to do was unredact some of the documents (Samsung's own documents) to show that the documents were actually exonerative?

Edit: I see that this story cites a groklaw link, so I'll take it with buckets of salt and await some analysis that as at least a modicum of objectivity.

Edited 2012-10-08 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: -4

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No. Please read.

The Court, the jury, the lawyers -- all had and have the unredacted documents. Groklaw is making a mountain out of a molehill and a very un-legal argument.

Thom's explanation is very poor: Apple didn't edit Samsung documents like a ransom note and present that as evidence.

The documents were argued over as a legal matter, Samsung had their say, the Judge had her say, and they were submitted to the jury. Apple's lawyers then selectively quoted them and the media misquoted them. That's it. Nothing illegal or heinous or shady.

Edited 2012-10-08 23:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right, because dry legal documents are clearly just as powerful as a lawyer's arguments.

It's clear from these unsealed documents that the story Apple's lawyers told the judge, jury, and media - namely, that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order - was bullshit. Made up. A fairy tale.

That's scummy. Of course, it's just regular lawyer stuff - but we still have a right to the truth - and it's clearly not on Apple's side.

Reply Parent Score: 11

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Do you have any proof that "misquoting" was beeing done on the "media" side?

All quotes I have seen copy letter by letter Apple redacted text.

So if "Media" misquoted, by providing EXACT text as Apple, but apple did not misquoted, than you fail on basic logic.

Reply Parent Score: 3