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 538160
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:27 UTC 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[9]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:37 in reply to "RE[8]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I do not find any quotes of yours to claim: Apple thinks the preponderance of all of their evidence proves their claim. I find innumerable statements claiming that Apple claims this document presents a direct order to copy the iPhone, and that this statement is now disproven.

This is nonsense. Are you unaware of what you are writing?

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

RE[9]: lazy lazy lazy
by TM99 on Thu 11th Oct 2012 08:10 in reply to "RE[8]: lazy lazy lazy"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

I have some questions for you with regards to this 'argument', and please answer it honestly.

Are you a lawyer? Are you even a paralegal? Have you ever had graduate level courses in business law as part of any of your educational experience?

Reply Parent Score: 2