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 538163
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: lazy lazy lazy
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 17:33 UTC 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[10]: lazy lazy lazy
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 18:36 in reply to "RE[9]: lazy lazy lazy"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Here's one last attempt to characterize what the groklaw story and this post actually state:

1. Apple presented the best, most favorable evidence to support its case to the Court and believes that evidence is sufficient to win a positive ruling (which it did!)

2. We (the Apple haters) believe we have found contradictory evidence that Samsung failed to present to defend itself and/or the Court deemed not admissable and/or the jury decided was not a persuasive defense. We have decided to not pursue these possibilities and blame it all on Apple instead, characterizing it as improper, nefarious, dishonest lying along the way as if this somehow invalidates the Court proceedings, verdict, and copious other evidence.

Reply Parent Score: 2