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 537915
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Go back and read the documents Apple filed. They left out a whole bunch of stuff to focus on only a few lines, most prominently this one:

"I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone."

Pretty damning, right?

That was said by a Samsung guy, but if you read this in its context, which Apple ignored, it's suddenly something else entirely. And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.

We now know it was all lies. Stuff Apple made up on the spot. That's progress. It's fascinating that it's impossible for you to admit that Apple's lawyers have been caught with their pants down. Then again, you people are still defending the jury foreman, so no surprises here.

Edited 2012-10-09 08:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

Then again, you people are still defending the jury foreman, so no surprises here.


What do you mean, "you people"!?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

What do YOU mean, "you people??"

Reply Parent Score: 4

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, Apple didn't leave out parts of the document. The document was sealed. The document was viewed by all court participants in its entirety. Apple quoted the portion of the document that it thought was relevent to the case and was going to use in cross-examination. Here's Apple's statement:

Similarly, an email chain sourced to Designer Custodian Jeeyeun Wang summarizes a February 2010 meeting between the Head of Samsung’s Mobile Communication Division on Design and numerous Samsung designers, including Minhyouk Lee, Yunjung Lee, and Jinsoo Kim. (Chung Decl. Ex. H at SAMNDCA10247377.) The Head of Samsung’s Mobile Division strongly criticized the design of Samsung’s current phones and, at the same time, praised the iPhone design:


There is no law that says whenever quoting a document submitted to the Court you need to quote the entire thing. Suggesting so is just pure stupidity.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.


This is the fourth time you've said this, and this time you've clearly asserted there is a quote. Please provide this quote where Apple states there was an order to copy the iPhone and that this document is proof of it, please.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"And this is just in documents - you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.


This is the fourth time you've said this, and this time you've clearly asserted there is a quote. Please provide this quote where Apple states there was an order to copy the iPhone and that this document is proof of it, please.
"

Are you intentionally being silly or are you really that ignorant?

Apple's ENTIRE CASE is built around this very premise. Apple argues that Samsung *wilfully* copied/infringed Apple's designs, trade dress, and software patents. That's Apple's CENTRAL reason to start this court case. Are you arguing this is untrue? Are you arguing that Apple started this case because of other reasons?

If so, I - and I imagine the rest of the world, including Apple itself - would love to know which reasons they are.

Reply Parent Score: 4