Samsung's 'Crisis of Design' Memo Enters Patent Trial as Early Apple Designer Testifies on Confusion

[rjohnstone]

Yeah, I thought it was an iPad. Because the general shape, layout, and edge is identical the scale didn't even register until I read that reply saying it was too small.

The camera was the first thing that i noticed was wrong.
Then the size of the device compared to the persons hand made it obvious it wasn't an iPad.

Perspective shots like this can fool a lot of people because the depth of filed is skewed against the person's blurred out head and shoulder giving the illusion of a larger device.

 

[Mad-B-One]

The discovery process is the period where the parties exchange information. The parties operate under a ongoing duty to supplement, so they have to produce relevant documents as they find them regardless of when that happens.

In pretrial the parties have to identify which of the documents that have been produced they intend to use as exhibits at trial. This is a necessary step to ensure fairness so the other side can object to its use (and the judge can decide) before you drag it in front of the jury.

You can use documents to impeach a witness or refresh the witnesses' recollection even if its not in evidence (but that doesn't mean it automatically becomes evidence).

Finally, if you discover a document not produced through discovery at a later date you can seek its introduction if it should have been produced and the other side has opportunity to review it. Generally works when it's used by the opposing party, so you can't intentionally sandbag your opponent by withholding relevant documents.

Thank you for the answer. It was pretty much explaining what I was wondering about. It all makes sense. Anything else, I would have found absurd.

 

[samcraig]

As suspected - more to this story than what was presented in court...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121004050859829

In short - the comments from the "famed" email were out of context and there was a lot more "there" vs a blatant request to copy the iPhone.

 

[entatlrg]

As suspected - more to this story than what was presented in court...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121004050859829

In short - the comments from the "famed" email were out of context and there was a lot more "there" vs a blatant request to copy the iPhone.

samcraig is on it today! LOL You made the indentical post in two threads.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1429388/

Atta boy, straighten us Apple fans out, if you post enough times we'll eventually believe it right? Samsung good Apple bad, we're slow, but keep posting we'll get it eventually.

By the way, what's your point? Trying to convert us into Apple haters, prove us wrong, say "I told you so", practicing to be a Samsung lawyer, what??

 

[samcraig]

samcraig is on it today! LOL You made the indentical post in two threads.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1429388/

Atta boy, straighten us Apple fans out, if you post enough times we'll eventually believe it right? Samsung good Apple bad, we're slow, but keep posting we'll get it eventually.

By the way, what's your point? Trying to convert us into Apple haters, prove us wrong, say "I told you so", practicing to be a Samsung lawyer, what??

Not identical. Similar. I see now where you have issues LOL

I'm not trying to straighten anyone out. I'm presenting new information that I read online that is germane to the discussion. I didn't make any evaluation as to who was good and who was bad.

The only "I told you so" part was in reference to the fact that there is always more to the story. People were quick to immediately come to a conclusion based on one statement that was out of context. This doesn't serve anyone seeking the truth any good. Whether it's a statement Apple makes out of context or anyone else. But way to take it so personal.

 

[entatlrg]

Not identical. Similar. I see now where you have issues LOL

I'm not trying to straighten anyone out. I'm presenting new information that I read online that is germane to the discussion. I didn't make any evaluation as to who was good and who was bad.

The only "I told you so" part was in reference to the fact that there is always more to the story. People were quick to immediately come to a conclusion based on one statement that was out of context. This doesn't serve anyone seeking the truth any good. Whether it's a statement Apple makes out of context or anyone else. But way to take it so personal.

Seems to me like you're an avid anti Apple poster and you dug up a thread over 6 weeks old to continue it. To be double sure you got your message across you dug up another thread and posted basically the same thing twice.

Although you clearly think they did, I don't think anyone here came "to a conclusion based on one statement that was out of context". You might consider giving "people" here more credit than that.

 

[samcraig]

Seems to me like you're an avid anti Apple poster and you dug up a thread over 6 weeks old to continue it. To be double sure you got your message across you dug up another thread and posted basically the same thing twice.

Although you clearly think they did, I don't think anyone here came "to a conclusion based on one statement that was out of context". You might consider giving "people" here more credit than that.

You're not giving me any credit. And you seem to think I'm an Apple hater. Not remotely true. Most of the tech I own is Apple, in fact. That doesn't mean I give them a free pass to do whatever they want or that they aren't a flawed company or have flawed products.

"Hating" a company is a waste of time and energy. I don't really associate emotional attachment like that to a business. But you can feel free to.

I posted in this thread because it's germane to the breaking news. So instead of starting a new thread - I posted where it was appropriate. In two different threads because it relates to two different (but similar) topics.

And there are definitely people who took this one email and came to the immediate conclusion of guilt. If you think otherwise, you're in denial.

ETA: and lastly - if it pains you so much to read more about the topic and/or be further educated on it - why click into both threads. And why the snarky response as if to discredit me/the groklaw findings?