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 538146
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I present to you Apple's selective quoting to make it seem as if a Samsung exec ordered its designers to copy the iPhone: you dismiss it.

I explain to you that Apple has been hammering on about 'wilfulness' which intrinsically means that it Samsung copied the iPhone *on purpose*, and thus that someone must have given the order to do so. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of wilfulness and dismiss it.

Another commenter then presents the following line, in which Apple literally argues that Samsung had a plan to copy the iPhone:

"Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features [...]"


And you still insist Apple did not argue Samsung gave a copy order? What, is Samsung some sort of collective hivemind whose individual members all magically come up with the same ideas without executives calling the shots?

This is so incredibly crazy. We've given you everything you asked for and more, and yet you continue to ask for more 'proof'. Yes, this is EXACTLY like people asking for ever more missing links - and that's not trolling, it's a pointy simile to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.

Edited 2012-10-10 16:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:54 in reply to "RE[4]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I present to you Apple's selective quoting to make it seem as if a Samsung exec ordered its designers to copy the iPhone: you dismiss it.


There is nothing wrong with selective quoting. And it is your assertion that Apple claims this document is proof of a "Copy the iPhone" order that is in question.

I explain to you that Apple has been hammering on about 'wilfulness' which intrinsically means that it Samsung copied the iPhone *on purpose*, and thus that someone must have given the order to do so. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of wilfulness and dismiss it.


You do not understand willful infringement. There does not need to be proof of an order whatsoever. There needs to be a demonstration of a knowledge of the patents and a willingness to continue to potentially infringe them. You will not find any legal citation claiming that direct proof of an order to copy a product is the requirement for willfulness.

Another commenter then presents the following line, in which Apple literally argues that Samsung had a plan to copy the iPhone:

""Samsung’s documents show that Samsung developed an overall plan to copy Apple’s innovative designs and features [...]"


And you still insist Apple did not argue Samsung gave a copy order?
"

Yes, a quote states that the entirety of Samsung's documents show a plan to copy the iPhone. This is not equivalent to claiming that a specific document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone. This is not the equivalent of Apple claiming it proved anything.

What, is Samsung some sort of collective hivemind whose individual members all magically come up with the same ideas without executives calling the shots?


I'm not sure what you think such a question demonstrates unless you are under the misguided belief that Apple had to prove there was a direct order to copy the iPhone and that said document was claimed by Apple. But neither is the case.

This is so incredibly crazy. We've given you everything you asked for and more, and yet you continue to ask for more 'proof'.


I've asked you to provide a single quote in which Apple claims the documents in question proves a direct order to copy the iPhone. You haven't even attempted to quote Apple once. You have giving me NOTHING. You haven't even attempted to quote Apple once. You have just claimed for yourself what Apple thinks, acts on, and states -- out of your own imagination. Please quote Apple. This is all I ask.

Yes, this is EXACTLY like people asking for ever more missing links - and that's not trolling, it's a pointy simile to illustrate how ridiculous you sound.



I've merely asked for a quote that would remotely demonstrate your strongly asserted false claim. You've provided zero evidence to support that claim.

Edited 2012-10-10 16:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:03 in reply to "RE[5]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I give up. You clearly refuse to accept the presented clear and cut evidence that Apple argued Samsung gave a copy order. We've given you numerous pieces of evidence, and instead of just admitting you were wrong, you now even attribute things to me I never claimed in the first place. For instance, I never said this:

"This is not equivalent to claiming that a specific document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone."

Funnily enough, you actually admit that I was right one sentence earlier:

"Yes, a quote states that the entirety of Samsung's documents show a plan to copy the iPhone."

That is actually exactly what my claim was. So, it turns out you do actually admit you were wrong. Good.

Reply Parent Score: 2