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 537936
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 9th Oct 2012 13:21 UTC
Member since:

I'm kind of surprised some people think lawyers spend their time finding the truth. It's a lawyers job to defend his client's interests.

It's not that bad if they make stuff up, let them, because stuff that isn't true is much easier to debunk than stuff that is.

You're not guilty until proven so beyond any reasonable doubt. If Apple's lawyers raised stuff that wasn't true or out of context it should be easy for Samsung's legal team to disprove it or at least raise some doubt.

To me is seemed Apple put in much more effort in to their case and had much better lawyers than Samsung did. Had Samsung done a better they could have raised enough doubt to win it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Tue 9th Oct 2012 15:22 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
anevilyak Member since:

You're not guilty until proven so beyond any reasonable doubt.

While this might vary by country, in the US where this court case took place the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard only applies to criminal cases. Civil cases such as this one use the comparatively much more lax "preponderence of evidence" standard, which is a significantly lower bar to hit.

Edited 2012-10-09 15:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6