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 537865
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Damning? Silly really.
by jared_wilkes on Mon 8th Oct 2012 23:00 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

The mistakes being made by groklaw are:

1) acting as if the entirety of the document wasn't presented to the Court as evidence.

2) portraying the submission of this document and selective quoting of it as Apple's "proof" that Samsung "copied the iPhone" [Remember: Samsung also portrayed itself as a design power house that already had designs comparable to the iPhone and that its current products are descendant from those designs and that anything remotely similar to Apple's designs was mere coincidence or necessity. The greatest import of the document is the design crisis, the need to respond to Apple, to change their ways. Whether by being different or copying.]

3) depicting the submitted documents and quotes (as filtered through an uneducated media) as something that is false, illegal, or dastardly [What? The lawyers selectively quoted from evidentiary documents? Oh my!] and, hence, the entire verdict is suspect and invalid.

Edited 2012-10-08 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 5