To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.





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