|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Actually, if you bothered to look at the images, you'd note that the third image
(from The Android Invasion) is not a stock image. Neither is the 4th image
(showing the search box). That's one non-stock photo for each case.
You owe PJ an apology. Perhaps in the future you'll research something before
you state a claim so that you won't find yourself in the embarassing position
you now occupy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
The second two are not stock images. Maybe you should
actually look at the links in future.
The point is that it is not who's right or wrong, but that
it's unreasonable to question someone's integrity because of
really minor details which are quite irrelevant to the
argument.
See where this has led? Apple are the ones who presented
manipulative and misleading evidence. Samsung responded
entirely correctly and honourably. But the judge has forced
THEM into the defensive, leaving them to argue that their
evidence is legit. Even if they prevail, the overall
impression affect the trial in a subtle way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
