Talk:Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co./Archive 1

Prose
I don't wish to start an edit war, but my revisions were reverted in their entirety by User:Sctechlaw. He did point out valid concerns on my talk page, but I do not think that these concerns justify a complete reversion of what I wrote. Specifically, I improved the sentence structure of some segments of the article so that readers would not be "lost" in an unnecessarily long sentence, and eliminated redundancies. These improvements also included modifying sentences to avoid "cramming" salient details toward the end of a sentence, thereby causing a reader to become disinterested and lose context. In addition, I combined some headings under the "court cases" section because they did not appear to be long enough to merit separate headings, and these were also deleted. These, I think, were unfairly reverted under the broad stroke of "legal style." Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article
The article and how it's italicised suggests to me that this article should only document the trial in the US and that verdicts/lawsuit actions in other countries should be moved under the article Litigation between Apple and Samsung Electronics. In addition, the US trial is very high profile compared to lawsuits in other countries, so I think it's appropriate that this article should only cover the events in the US. Any thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that only high profile case should receive most of the attention. It makes no sense and it fails to take into consideration that these countries are important enough for these two companies to continue their legal battles. 99.127.225.136 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

First trial appeal
This section needs a lot of editing - I've moved two paragraphs that were previously in "second trial" to here, because they relate to the appeal from the first trial, but now there's a lot of repetition about Hogan's interview. I'll be back later to clean it up more. Danrose909 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Germany
It should perhaps be made clearer that the German rulings against Samsung are no longer applicable. The UK court has been sitting as a pan-EU copyright and patent court, so its ruling supersedes the German one. 86.129.248.39 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mention TouchWiz here?
TouchWiz article (unsourced): "TouchWiz was a central issue in Apple v. Samsung.". Not sure what they are talking about. If just false, can someone take it out there? And while I'm at it, Smartphone wars ends in 2012 but seems to be ongoing. Might be other cases not sur if it's this one. comp.arch (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

US Courts
Can someone with expertise please check the accuracy of this section, as I did my best, but it became confusing due to the amount of information I was dealing with. I am most concerned about the timeline and the veracity of the content.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up
Be prepared for a new wave of biased, pro-Apple, anti-Samsung edit attempts. Well known Apple fanboy (and vitriolic hater of anything Samsung and Android) Daniel Eran Dilger just released one of his usual diatribes (entitled "How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial"), this time attempting to discredit this wikipedia article, and basically encouraging Apple fans to edit it according to their views. Slopswool (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While Appleinsider is indeed an Apple fanboy's haven, should we not be thankful for the interest in whether Wikipedia's entries are fairly balanced? Your “Heads-up” contains terms such as “vitriolic hater” and “diatribes”. Is not this wording as biased as Dilger's? Bjornte (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the attitude Slopswool's words convey represents rather well what the Appleinsider article is complaining about. Dilger is rather specific with his criticisms of this Wikipedia page.  Perhaps a more constructive thing to do would be to bring in other outside voices to review the page.  I don't know if something like a Request for comment or posting to the Dispute resolution noticeboard would be appropriate... but let's face it, Samsung vs Apple can easily devolve into a bit of a holy war, so maybe it is a good idea to get some input from experienced, neutral editors. Fishbert (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The person continuously deleting a cited comment on the basis that it "implie[s] that the legal case was about rectangles with rounded corners. In reality, the case was about direct and willful copying of multiple design elements" isn't doing anyone any favors given their own interpretation is highly subjective and not cited. Zoolook (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fishbert. Clearly Dilger's article is biased, but there are a number of specific criticisms he discusses which may need to be examined and/or addressed by truly neutral editors. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he makes some valid points. We shouldn't, for example, be using blogs as sources. I'm on the verge of reporting Slopswool at ANI. He appears to be an obvious sock and quite disruptive. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention no original research is allowed is kind of a factor, too. Ging287 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bjornte, anything coming from AppleInsider or Daniel Eran Dilger (aka "Corrections") is the precise opposite of "fairly balanced". We are expected to edit Wikipedia under a neutral point of view. If you have ever read anything Dilger wrote about Apple, Android, Samsung, or South Korea, you would notice that his writings are the antithesis of "neutral point of view". Furthermore, I recommend you to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Slopswool (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like many of the Apple fanatics from the "AppleInsider" discussion forum heeded Daniel Eran Dilger's (aka "Corrections") "call to arms" and attempted to inject their biased opinions into this article. Luckily Wikipedia-editors did the smart thing and protected the article. Otherwise, we would have the likes of "EricTheHalfBee" (another Apple fanatic copiously posting on "AppleInsider"), going through with their threat of "In fact, I'm going to test this myself this weekend. I'm going to 'correct' the WiKi page, take some screen shots, and see how long it takes before my corrections are 'edited'". Slopswool (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Slopswool, how can you advocate a "neutral point of view" and at the same time refer to an entire group of people as "fanatics" just because they are readers of a tech blog? Bjornte (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bjornte, I was not referring to mere readers of "AppleInsider" as fanatics, I was talking about those who comment on the "AppleInsider" discussion forum. If you have ever sampled the comments there, you will realize that for the majority of the posters, "fanatics" is almost too kind a description (for example, if you dredge through these comments, you will find a post by a "Tallest Skil" advocating a nuclear attack by North Korea on South Korea, as punishment for "stealing the iPhone" -- oh well, morons are everywhere, right? -- alas, the disturbing thing about "AppleInsider" is that posts like this do not get removed by the moderators of the forum, nor opposed by other posters). Secondly, what I advocate or not does not matter -- it is a Wikipedia rule that its entries must be written under a neutral point of view. Slopswool (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Slopswool, what you're delivering here is in itself far from your proclaimed NPOV but heavily biased. Your POV might appear neutral to your own perception but for any outsider it is obviously not. You're in fact advocating your very private POV. IOOI (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, since I am not editing this article. All I did was write a warning that following Dilger's hit piece, biased edit attempts will likely follow. It is well known that Apple has numerous, rabid followers, for whom Apple is akin to a religion. Slopswool (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention FRAND status of samsung asserted patents?
Although it was mentioned in the article that samsung's patents referred to "mobile-communications technologies", I did not see anywhere in the article listed that many of those patents were under FRAND license agreements, as they were/are part of the 3G/UTMS standard (as stated in apple's pre trial brief, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf, see page 28). Although, as far as unbiased sources go, a brief from one side is about as bad as it gets (although submitted at the trial, and therefore a primary source), I have not seen anything from samsung disputing this fact, nor anywhere else, and it is true to the best of my knowledge. Should this not be mentioned in either the Origin, US trial, or the european commissions complaints regarding samsung's use of said FRAND patents at trial (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1448_en.htm)? 138.16.13.58 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is your handle on "AppleInsider", anonymous-two-edit-wonder? Slopswool (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. This is to ensure that claims can be backed up with reliable sources and be verified with evidence. Second, the absence of objection is not confirmation of a claim. The first link you mention is a lengthy court document pretty much outlining the trial from Apple's POV. If you want to use it, outline what part of it would be relevant in this case. Second concern would be WP:UNDUE. If this was more notable, then there would be more sources for it. Ging287 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ging287, maybe I misunderstand you, but if you are claiming there are no additional sources for the FRAND issue as stated by 138.16.13.58, how can you verify this? A quick search yields several trustworthy sources, e.g. “Judge agrees to hear Apple's FRAND defenses” and “Samsung lawsuits against Apple over 3G patents could backfire”. Am I missing some context here? Bjornte (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Slopswool, I interpret your reply to 138.16.13.58 as harassment. This, together with your en masse characterization of a group as "fanatics", together with slander against a named person, is outside Wikipedia's etiquette. Bjornte (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bjornte, interpret as you wish. You might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day. After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino. To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments, and its army of blind followers. Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)