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 537869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

(At least PJ is honest enough to air-quote "proof" and "copying". She's waging a far more subtle propaganda.)


design principles that Apple has embodied for 35+ years...


As opposed to the blatant propaganda Apple produces that you've been taken hook, line and sinker.

Reply Parent Score: 12

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Read FULL text. CARRIERS TOLD SAMSUNG THAT THEY LIKE IPHONE.

In other words, boss stated that iOS/iPhone is DE FACTO standard in UX, by witch Samsung UX will be judged.

But if you compare lines that cover "creativity" and those that compare to "iOS/iPhone" you get clear picture.

We are here (UX that do not sell). We ARE judged against iPhone. Give me something good, easy to use, and creative.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14


(It's like a mob leader asking for a hit: "I'd hate to see anything happen to him. If he would just go away, that would solve our problem. But I wouldn't want him dead. Now, how are you going to solve our problem?" --Objection, that can't be submitted as evidence of ordering a murder! To the contrary, it's evidence that he wanted him alive!)


That wouldn't be grounds for not admitting the evidence, but it would be the defences argument about how to interpret the evidence. Legal trials do not reach the same level of proof as mathematics.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I am confused. Are you saying something about some documents or are you saying something about what Samsung actually did?

If the latter are you saying that Samsung did not try to make their products look and work like Apple's down to and including the packaging, peripherals and retails stores? Perhaps you think that so many Samsung's designs, products, packaging, peripherals and retails stores all look uncannily like Apple's because of an accident or because of coincidence. Is it really too hard for you believe that a company as ruthlessly focussed (and I mean that in a good sense) as Samsung decided that it had to stick with Apple as closely as possible in a market that seemed to be reeling from one massive change to another so quickly and in which only Apple seemed to have the key to making big profits?

Personally I think it made a lot of sense for Samsung to do what it did when the iPhone disruption hit the smart phone market , i.e. copy Apple's products and playbook as closely as possible. It worked. As a result Samsung carved out a large and profitable market for itself and established itself as the main player in the Android phone market. The other Android OEMs floundered, and continue to largely flounder, in Samsung's wake. Samsung played the let's 'copy Apple card' and as a result have established themselves as the high profile Android OEM big hitter, they have got a legal slap on the wrist as result (is anyone really surprised?) but it was worth it from their point of view. Now they can try to differentiate their products from Apple's and we will see how good their designs are. There are rumours that they are working with Google on new tablet to go after the iPad.

I find the outrage and indignation about all this hard to fathom. Apple came up with a game changer with the original iPhone. It left the phone OEMs reeling as they had been churning out at best mediocre design for years and now suddenly they have to embrace a new design paradigm, a new OS in Android and try to catch Apple in terms of brand awareness and design quality. The most ruthless about responding to the iPhone was Samsung, they did the only thing that was open to them in the short term in order to avoid being left permanently behind which was too mimic Apple as closely as possible. They pushed that strategy hard as far as they could go until they got busted. Is any of this surprising or news to anyone? Does anybody think Samsung or Apple would have been better served by doing anything different.

So now post trial the Android OEMs like Samsung have to avoid making their stuff too blatantly like Apple's - so what?

Reply Parent Score: 2