Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Patents The Courts Apple

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction 178

Posted by samzenpus
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by laudunum (585188) on Monday October 08, 2012 @10:55AM (#41586149)
    Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @10:56AM (#41586169)

    Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers

    That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@worldCOMMA3.net minus punct> on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:45AM (#41586893) Homepage

    for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

    I think you misunderstood the point. Samsung's patents have clear value and pretty much everyone who makes a smart phone has to license them, typically by cross licensing their own patents. Apple's patents are about design elements, may well be invalid or unenforceable and they are not interested in licensing them anyway. It's a problem for Apple because then they have to pay cash to license FRAND patents, and when looking at their net worth and assets such patents are generally worth very little if anything.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:41PM (#41587871)

    Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.

  • and.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) on Monday October 08, 2012 @02:02PM (#41588989)
    and since Apple is now coming out with bigger screens (iPhone 5), it appears that Apple is copying Samsung.

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...