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?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:2011-04-25
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.
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
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.
The day has finally come! Jolla has finally announced the launch device for its Sailfish operating system - and by god this is a looker. It's decidedly different from other phones out there, but it has good specifications and carries a relatively reasonably price tag - EUR 399, and it's up for pre-order today, shipping in the fourth quarter of this year.
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
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