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 538154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:03 UTC 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

RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:13 in reply to "RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You clearly have a very juvenile understanding of US law if you think I've ever agreed with you in this discussion.


(What f'in' evidence have you provided to support the claim that Apple claims Samsung issued an order to copy the iPhone? Your complete misunderstanding of willfulness? Is that your evidence?)

However, if you are now claiming, that Apple's legal representation argued that the entirety of the evidence presented demonstrated that Samsung violated its patents, copyrights, and trade dress, sure, I agree with you. (None of your statements sound like this. This sounds like: hey, did you know that Apple sued Samsung and thinks it has a case?)

Of course, if that is your claim, pointing to a selective quote from one document certainly doesn't disprove it.

Edited 2012-10-10 17:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:27 in reply to "RE[6]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I'd also have to question your comprehension of English as well, but I know you are just trolling, if you find these two sentences to be the same:

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

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


Huh? Saying the entirety of the evidence shows a plan to copy is the same as stating one document specifically presents a direct order to copy? Really?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:33 in reply to "RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, I'm specifically stating they are NOT the same. The first one is something you attribute to me but that I never actually said - while the second one is where you agree with what I actually said.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 19:36 in reply to "RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Poor choice of words I guess: I know you are stating one is opposite to the other; however, you are claiming that your position all along is that Apple believes the entirety of its evidence proves its case, and that this is equivalent to Apple claims this specific document is proof of a "copy the iPhone" order. Thus, I can't disagree with one and agree with another. This is nonsense; the two statements are not remotely similar.

Reply Parent Score: 2