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 537945
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

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?


And? It's you who is being silly. You have claimed that this document has been presented as proof of a copy order. This is quite specific and different from the purpose of the ENTIRE CASE. You've claimed there are specific comments by Apple lawyers suggesting that this document was presented as proof of a copy order. You didn't claim that Apple sued for copyright, patent, and trade dress infringement; you didn't claim that this was the reason for the trial on such charges. You claim Apple presented this document as proof of an order to copy the iPhone. You claim they made specific statements saying exactly that. You cannot provide any quotes of any such statements because they do not exist.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, I think you really have no understanding of what this court case is all about. Apple is arguing that not only did Samsung copy Apple - but it did so *wilfully*. Wilfully means that it was done *on purpose*. In other words, that someone inside Samsung said "copy the iPhone" (that's what trade dress is - the entire appearance). Apple's lawyers have hammered on about wilfulness all through the court proceedings and their filings - and this document, as well as the side-by-side comparison - was used to strengthen Apple's argument that Samsung acted wilfully.

This is all quite basic stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It's also quite basic that the entirety of the evidence, the arguments made, and the law determine the proof.

You are quite specifically arguing (or rather were) that Apple claims this specific document is proof of a copy order. You said it at least 4 times and then went on to suggest there are several quotes by Apple lawyers claiming so ("you should hear the Apple lawyers talk, where they further emphasised that Samsung specifically ordered its design team to copy the iPhone.") But you can't provide any of this specific talk.

But now you claim merely bringing a copyright, patent, trade dress infringment claim against someone implies (?) that evidence (any and all?) will prove those claims based on documenting a direct order?

Nonsense.

I fully understand that Apple's intent and goal was to legally prove that Samsung violated Apple's valid copyright, patent, and trade dress rights. I wholly reject the notion that because of this intention, this means these documents must directly prove there was a direct order to copy the iPhone. Do you see how those 2 statements are consistent? Do you see how trying to claim the second (not the rejection of it, but the inverse) logically flows from the former is completely untenable?

Again, you've claimed innumerable times that Apple lawyers have presented this document of proof of an order to copy, but you cannot provide any such quote.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also... Just plain NO.

Going for willful infringement does not mean that you have to provide documentary evidence of a direct order to explicitly copy. Nor does the intent to prove willful infringment carry with it the claim that you can provide evidence of such an order.

Please don't make up US law or provide your version of what you'd like it to be for us, Thom.

Reply Parent Score: 2