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 538128
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 15:36 UTC in reply to "lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

This statement is more in accord with everything I said than what Thom has been saying.

It points to the entirety of the Samsung documents. It states that the docs outline an overall strategy. It never says proves. It quotes other docs besides the 2 cited by Thom and PJ (dating from 2007 rather than the 2010 meeting minutes documents).

Or are you suggesting that legal representation should be required to not have faith in their own arguments?

I see nothing hear claiming that the particular minutes from the design meeting are proof that Samsung issued a "copy the iPhone order."

But I do appreciate that you did the work, unlike Thom and PJ, who are being awfully and hypocritically selective about quoting in posts about selective quoting.

Edited 2012-10-10 15:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:00 in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You sound like one of those people who keep asking for ever more missing links between ape and man. Each time a new link is found, you shift the goalposts and demand yet another link. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Fascinating.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by MOS6510 on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:25 in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think he's pretty clear what he wants, but you keep presenting him with other stuff.

To use your example: Jared wants to see a man, while you keep bringing him apes saying "it looks a bit like a modern human, so it must be one".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:27 in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And your trolling reaches new heights. Each new link? One commenter posted one. And that statement agrees with everything I have said and doesn't even reference the documents in question. But you managed to be insulting so that's a point for you (by Fandroid rules, I suppose).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by Bennie on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:55 in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

Semantics Jared. It indeed says "it shows" instead of "it proves". But it's just the same. And indeed maybe they (Apple) did not say something specific about the 2010 document, but more about all presented docs, but at least you could just agree with Thom that this 2010 document at least did not show/prove anything that Samsung was trying to copy the iPhone. What you're now doing is bashing the messenger. Quiet typical for internet jockeys on a damage control crusade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:02 in reply to "RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, I do not agree. Again, I do not accept PJ's and Thom's initial premise: that anyone is claiming that these two documents on their own are the sole basis for any conclusion. But I think these two documents point towards (and contribute to, in addition to numerous other pieces of evidence) several crucial points necessary to Apple's narrative and arguments and towards a successful verdict:

That Samsung's design prowess was hugely lacking and they needed to alter course.

That Samsung saw the principles exemplified by Apple's UX as the desirable traits that would determine market success.

That Samsung's own leadership understood that the consumer's found Apple's iPhone experience superior to what they were providing.

And numerous other points which Samsung attempted to claim were not true...

Again, I do not take one document or one quote out of context and claim that it does or does not prove anything. (I actually accept that most evidence and witnesses can and will present pros and cons for each case, that they may be contradictory or vague, but that when judged in light of all other evidence, a truth can be discerned.) Again, I take issue with PJ's and Thom's attempt to portray Apple's legal defense as unsavory (the documents in question were argued over copiously by Apple and Samsung and the Judge; Samsung could have put the executives responsible for this meeting on the stand to testify in rebuttal if they had as much faith in the true nature of this meeting as Thom and PJ do -- instead they sent underlings), etc... And I take issue with the claim that these specific documents were relied upon to prove a particular point and that this has now been disproven. Thom and PJ are miles away from any such thing.

Edited 2012-10-10 17:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: lazy lazy lazy
by TechGeek on Thu 11th Oct 2012 14:54 in reply to "RE: lazy lazy lazy"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

If you read all of the documents in the case, you will get a pretty decent picture of Samsung's actions. The CEO of Samsung specifically said they shouldn't be copying Apple, they should be looking beyond what Apple is doing now. Apple's lawyers used a lot of quotes out of context and half truths to tell their story. Samsung's lawyers did a bad job (at least IMHO) but that doesn't make what Apple said actually true.

Reply Parent Score: 3