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 538152
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:02 UTC 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