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 537874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

This meeting sounds exactly what the majority thinks Samsung meetings are like: "We screwed up. We were copying Nokia and Microsoft for so long we had nothing on the iPhone. Now we have to think for ourselves. Now we have to focus on UX that is easy, unique, friendly, simple, consumer-oriented. Because of the iPhone, Apple's design principles are the ones we need to copy, not Windows and Symbian. We need to delight like the iPhone. But not like the iPhone, no, unique, like the iPhone. Cough, Cough, the bosses want it to be like an iPhone. Only bigger."

(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!)

If you want to claim that this meeting isn't all about needing to respond to the iPhone because Samsung did not have competitive UX and then all of sudden were enlightened to the design principles that Apple has embodied for 35+ years... You'll need to be a lot more persuasive. Right now, you and Pamela sound silly.

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

Edited 2012-10-08 23:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -3

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

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Agreed. I'm not speaking to the legal merits of the document contents. I'm speaking to the argument put forth by PJ and Thom as being weak ("it doesn't encourage copying, it encourages Samsung being unique and design-focused!" -- nonsense).

Reply Parent Score: 1