Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-can-see-clearly-now dept.

another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

9 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Case Reset... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Case Reset... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whilst I'm very much an Apple fanboy, I hate this kind of patent nonsense. The whole case seems to be a very odd affair especially since the companies are so closely tied. Reminds me of NetApp vs SUN and the whole COW patent issue with ZFS. Those two settled their differences to stop hurting their customers. Apple really doesn't need to do all this as they have the better (imho) product and let's face it if we got rid of patents like this we'd be all be much better off.

  2. The irony... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:The irony... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compared to all the other companies who created the technologies in the iPhone? Apple doesn't have a team of voice recognition or natural language processing experts, they don't have a materials science team, and even the core of iOS was developed outside of Apple. All Apple has contributed is making things look smooth and pretty.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:The irony... by hierophanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what he is saying, is that the existing players put in 95% percent of the work that created the final product, not to say apple didnt contribute their own development. car analogy: but if you buy a car, and paint it red, you shouldnt be given credit for building the entire car.

      you are lying to yourself if you think the existing players werent creating an 'iOS experience' before apple came along.

  3. Bad summary by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.

    ... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it. Wonder how they found 12 people without cell phones to be on a jury so as not to be influenced by what they had - or how the patent master was left as foreman. I can't understand how either side saw him as a plus.

  4. Lawyers by jwthompson2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

    Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!

    Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?

    --
    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
  5. Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?

    The problem is that virtually all consumer technology has this issue, and since we would like to keep our toys, we conveniently ignore abuses like these. There's really no pleasent way around it.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.