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 537994
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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