or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial

post #1 of 147
Thread Starter 
In 2011, the world's two most profitable mobile phone makers engaged in a global IP war that continues to this day. As Apple and Samsung prepare for their second trial, it's useful to review why many onlookers were so ill informed about the first one: Wikipedia.

Patented


[Please note: after this article was published, the Wikipedia page it references was blanked by apparent vandalism. A Wikipedia contributor going by the name of "Slopswool" referenced this editorial, accusing it of "attempting to discredit this wikipedia article, and basically encouraging Apple fans to edit it according to their views."

While this editorial does indeed discredit the original misleading Wikipedia article, there is no truth in the accusation that it also was in any way "encouraging Apple fans to edit" the flawed Wikipedia article "according to their views."

AppleInsider does not encourage nor condone the vandalizing of any content in Wikipedia. It is also not useful to simply inject additional opinions into Wikipedia articles.

Readers are encouraged not to attack Wikipedia but simply to draw attention to any significant omissions of fact and the inappropriate regurgitation of Samsung's misleading propaganda that has infected Wikipedia reporting to the point of making it worthless as a reference for anyone interested in the actual events related to Apple vs. Samsung litigation.
]

At first glance, Wikipedia's article on the first California Apple v. Samsung trial appears to be an attempt to create an unbiased legal outline of events, one that is painstakingly researched and carefully sourced.

But as is the case whenever the free online encyclopedia ventures into a subject involving any sort of controversy, the side Wikipedia presents is the side of whoever has lots of free time and resources to devote to telling one.

A series of legal arguments and patent claims between Apple and Samsung that Wikipedia could have reported in factual depth is instead substituted with a slanted narrative flattering Samsung, a company that has, in its third year of legal wrangling with Apple, so far lost major infringement cases while winning no real significant legal recognition of any of its own patent infringement claims in any jurisdiction.

Wikipropaganda

Anyone reading Wikipedia's ostensibly encyclopedic recounting of the initial global lawsuits between the two companies would only get one side of the story: Samsung's

Anyone reading Wikipedia's ostensibly encyclopedic recounting of the initial global lawsuits between the two companies would only get one side of the story: Samsung's.

Wikipedia's narrative devotes more than quarter of its citations to establish the idea that Apple repeatedly presented faked evidence, that its patent claims were illegitimate nonsense and that the legal system has awarded it excessive patent protection while giving Samsung's own claims far too little attention, when actually the reverse is true in each case.

Wikipedia's report on the legal skirmishes between Apple and Samsung pieces together a conspiracy theory that reads like criticism of the historicity of NASA's moon landing, but at least in the case of Apple and Samsung, we don't have to leave the earth to investigate the actual facts.

Tampering evidence via wikipropaganda insinuations



Wikipedia's coverage of Apple v. Samsung legal arguments, assembled by anonymous community members, focuses on a series of "controversies" Samsung and its supporters have invented as a smokescreen to obscure facts, legal findings and both companies' intents and culpability across their global patent infringement disputes.

Samsung copies Apple


Of the 92 external sources the article cites in recounting the global disputes involving 50 cases in more than 9 countries between the two parties, 8 concern Samsung accusations of images that Wikipedia says were "tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar."

The subject of Apple's purported "evidence tampering" accounts for nearly a tenth of the entire article's sourcing, despite the fact that no court has actually found that there was any "tampering" of evidence by Apple that had any impact on any of the legal issues being decided or the subsequent verdicts in any case worldwide.

Instead, Judge Koh ruled during the trial that accusations by Samsung that Apple had "doctored" photographic evidence were simply "not credible."

One of these sources cited in the Wikipedia article is actually a post by blogger Thom Holwerda, which referenced an accusation by Samsung of "evidence tampering" in a Dutch trial. The paragraph-long blurb ends with, "Just goes to show, once more, how far Apple is willing to go to stifle competition through the legal system - lying, cheating, manipulating. What a classy, premium company, that Apple!"


Wikipedia Source: Thom Holwerda


Wikipedia's article, however, makes no mention of the fact that Apple also accused Samsung of tampering with evidence, not just by presenting product images that "are not to scale or are misleadingly scaled," but also to the point of hiding and obscuring relevant evidence from the jury.

Apple stated in court that Samsung had doctored the material presentation of its products to "remove the screen, which may distract the jury from the asserted design," adding graphics "that obscure portions of the accused devices, distracting from the overall impression of the accused designs," and was careful to "only show partial views of the asserted designs and trade dress."

Wikipedia doesn't even mention that. It also doesn't mention that the judge dismissed Samsung's evidence claims; instead, it flatly insists that photos Apple entered into evidence "were later found to have been tampered with," citing a Wall Street Journal article that never even implied that, along with a series of fansite blog "sources" including Holwerda's.

Round the corner: more wikipropaganda



Wikipedia's article also twice describes an Apple design patent as involving "rounded corners," a meme Samsung seeded throughout the trial. After losing, Samsung issued a statement to the press boldly insisting that the trial only meant that "patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."

Months later, Samsung attorney Bill Price shifted gears dramatically when he admitted to a new jury that the 13 Samsung models Apple challenged in the first trial did in fact "contain some elements of Apple's property" and that the infringing company did rightly owe Apple "a huge sum of money."

That certainly wouldn't have been the case if Apple had actually built its arguments around a claimed ownership of "round corners."

The only graphic Wikipedia presents in the article is used to suggest that Apple's design patents were excessively broad because they didn't also define the back of the device, pointing out that the back of Samsung's iPhone 3GS clone diverges from Apple's original design.


Source: Wikipedia


The argument that a one-sided photocopy isn't actually a photocopy if there's something else printed on the back side, or that the only way a patent can legitimately be infringed is if there's an indistinguishable copy so perfect that nobody can tell them apart, is a key message Samsung and its supporters worked to spread around blogs throughout the trial, but it is not a legally legitimate idea.

At the same time, Wikipedia also makes no reference to the widely reported incident where Samsung's attorney couldn't identify which tablet was Apple's and which was Samsung's when U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh held up examples of each in court.

Wikipedia and the case of the missing facts



Other facts that didn't make it into Wikipedia include actual evidence presented in the trial that detailed that Best Buy had reported issues with customers returning Samsung's tablets, complaining that they'd thought they had bought an iPad; or testimony that industrial designers had warned Samsung that its Galaxy S "looked like it copied the iPhone too much," or that even Google had admonished Samsung, saying that its tablet designs were "too similar" to Apple's.

In fact, a key cornerstone of Apple's case, the 132 page "Copy Cat" document Samsung created to detail what it needed to change to make its Galaxy products look and work as close to Apple's as possible, isn't even alluded to anywhere in Wikipedia's article outlining the two companies' legal issues.

Samsung iPhone copycat document


None of those salient, relevant facts that most certainly influenced jurors' opinions are detailed in Wikipedia's outline of the trial. Instead, Samsung's doublespeak and talking points are repeated over and over by Wikipedia volunteers.

Rather than seeking to add more factual evidence to Wikipedia's outline of events, one of the article's many editors decided to add further revisionism by watering down the court's finding that Samsung "copied key features of both the iPhone and iPad" with the nebulous idea that it had only "used some elements of Apple's design."

That was impossible to present in any other way, because by that point, Samsung's own attorney had admitted that the 13 Samsung models Apple challenged in the first trial did in fact "contain some elements of Apple's property" and that the infringing company did rightly owe Apple "a huge sum of money."

Jury vilification as wikipropaganda



At least another 17 citations in Wikipedia's article are used to attack the legitimacy of the jury that awarded Apple damages. Browbeating the jury's reputation in a passive voice, Wikipedia states that "the jury's decision was criticized for being Apple-friendly possibly leading to increased costs for Android smartphone users," while questioning the jury's impartiality and how quickly it reached its verdict.

And while the article emphasizes that the jury awarded Samsung "zero damages in its counter suit," it doesn't cite any sources examining why the jury tossed out all of Samsung's patent claims or why "the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that it believed Samsung was in the wrong." It just portrays that decision as being rash and unfair.

While journalists rarely cite Wikipedia, many members of the media (and many consumers curiously observing the case) reviewed the article in order to grasp the legal complexities of the first trial.

Despite initially appearing as a compilation of research to readers who discover it, Wikipedia's trial article is really just stew of misinformation and unsupported criticisms that ignores the vast majority of the evidence and arguments actually presented at trial.

To provide a better sense of the real issues involved in the second trial between Apple and Samsung, a subsequent segment will detail the patents and evidence the two companies will begin arguing next week.
post #2 of 147
If a Wikipedia article can be biased, it will be biased. If that's understood then no one would get hurt.
post #3 of 147

Seems obvious to me. People who can't afford an Apple product hate the company because they can't afford it. They go over to Samsung and buy their cheaper products and try to justify their purchase by pretending it was the best option and it's what they would have bought even if they had the money for an iPhone or iPad. The reason these people don't have the money is because they have crap/part time/no jobs.

As they have extra time on their hands due to the lack of work, they have time to edit Wikipedia and add their take on events.

Or as we know it, lies.

 

You won't be able to stop these low IQ'd drains on society, they simply have more time than we do.

post #4 of 147
If this Wikipedia page is off, why didn't the author edited it? Or is it locked down?

There was a page on Wiki about out local telco who said they supported 4G but failed to mention it didn't the new iPhone5, back in 2012. I added to the page info on the various bandwidth and terminology when it comes to telco frequencies. A few dates later the page was reverted to the last version. When I write a bit of a long story I copy paste it (learned that from crashing Safari on AI before the Auto Save Draft) so I was able to 'repost it' if you will.

Yup, next day reverted back again. So this became a game, who's first today, but I stopped after realising one can never win it from a telco.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #5 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

The reason these people don't have the money is because they have crap/part time/no jobs.
As they have extra time on their hands due to the lack of work, they have time to edit Wikipedia and add their take on events.
Or as we know it, lies.

You won't be able to stop these low IQ'd drains on society, they simply have more time than we do.

Apple ][ is that you?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #6 of 147
You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.
post #7 of 147
Sounds like it was commissioned by Samsung to support their cause. In college, one way to insure an F on a research paper is to quote Wikipedia.
post #8 of 147

The lamestream tech press is biased against Apple.  If you want fair and balanced factual reporting that isn't grossly slanted toward one perspective, come to Apple Insider!

post #9 of 147
You want to know another good one?

Try to find an original PDF user manual for the Neonode n1m (the phone Apple haters claim is prior art for slide to unlock). They have all been removed, even from Neonodes own support site. The ones you can still find are "edited" versions. What's been edited? The phrasing about unlocking your phone now says "Slide to Unlock". The original said something like "swipe right to accept".

Pathetic that people try to rewrite history of the Neonode by using the same phrasing Apple does in place what Neonode originally wrote. I still have an original kicking around - if anyone's interested I'll post it up.
post #10 of 147
I missed this when it happened
Quote:
Samsung's attorney couldn't identify which tablet was Apple's and which was Samsung's when U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh held up examples of each in court.
might be the funniest thing in the whole escapade.
post #11 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

Yeah I know.  The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.

post #12 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post
 

Yeah I know.  The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.

 

Shaming wikipedia over the outrageous garbage allowed just in one article is more effective than trying to "correct" (completely rewrite) this and every Wiki article that details fan site controversies and complaints targeting Apple. Perhaps there will be more efforts made to avoid hiding the truth and propagating Samsung’s talking points if these egregious examples of posting false information are brought to light. 

 

Or you can just complain in the comments that you were forced to read something investigative and factual rather than another blog-blurb expressing a trivial opinion on some tech announcement.

post #13 of 147
It wouldn't surprise me if Sammy pays people to edit Wiki in their favor. Either that or Fansungs have a lot of free time.
post #14 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Shaming wikipedia over the outrageous garbage allowed just in one article is more effective than trying to "correct" (completely rewrite) this and every Wiki article that details fan site controversies and complaints targeting Apple. Perhaps there will be more efforts made to avoid hiding the truth and propagating Samsung’s talking points if these egregious examples of posting false information are brought to light. 

 

Or you can just complain in the comments that you were forced to read something investigative and factual rather than another blog-blurb expressing a trivial opinion on some tech announcement.

How will this "shame" Wikipedia?

 

Do you think Jimmy Wales will read this and have a sudden epiphany that a community curated encyclopedia is a bad idea?  The whole point of Wikipedia is that people who supposedly know more about a topic have the freedom to correct errors.  By complaining about it on another website you completely defeat the purpose of it.

 

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge.

post #15 of 147

Awesome article DED, Thank you for this! wikipedia is biased.. just now used it and i can give some expamples like Wolverine (comicbooks): last time i checked Wolverine's Adamantium was virtually indestructible not near-indestructibl, is also an antihero not just a superhero and who'd the heck is James Howlett no i didn't read 2002 Wolverine comicbook or watch that terrible movie, even now i remember when iPhone 5 launched apple maps was all over wikipedia page

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #16 of 147
post #17 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Awesome article DED, Thank you for this! wikipedia is biased.. just now used it and i can give some expamples like Wolverine (comicbooks): last time i checked Wolverine's Adamantium was virtually indestructible not near-indestructibl, 

 

......  lol

post #18 of 147
Who has time to read Wikipedia except the Samsung and the hired gun
post #19 of 147
How the hell is this even worthy of an article?
post #20 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Seems obvious to me. People who can't afford an Apple product hate the company because they can't afford it. They go over to Samsung and buy their cheaper products and try to justify their purchase by pretending it was the best option and it's what they would have bought even if they had the money for an iPhone or iPad. The reason these people don't have the money is because they have crap/part time/no jobs.
As they have extra time on their hands due to the lack of work, they have time to edit Wikipedia and add their take on events.
Or as we know it, lies.

You won't be able to stop these low IQ'd drains on society, they simply have more time than we do.
You stole the words right out of my mouth. That is why I despise Samsung!!
post #21 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 


You are too logical.  That would deprive DED/Corrections of ammunition in his ongoing rail against Samsung - who are so terrible that Apple themselves seem to be doing ever more business with them as time passes.  Fixing the article would just remove one more picturesque windmill from the landscape for Don Quixote to tilt his lance at.

Ha!  That gave me a laugh, thanks!

post #22 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

How the hell is this even worthy of an article?

How the hell is it not?

post #23 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

 

You didn't seriously ask this question, did you?

 

You think a single person is going to be able to keep up with a whole legion of Apple haters/paid Samsung shills? I bet anything he adds or edits would be "corrected" immediately.

 

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".

post #24 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

It wouldn't surprise me if Sammy pays people to edit Wiki in their favor. Either that or Fansungs have a lot of free time.

 

Of course they do. Just like they got caught paying people to blog about their products. Twice. Or when they got caught trying to "convert" developers over at Stack by pretending to be developers interested in coding for Samsung.

post #25 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Shaming wikipedia over the outrageous garbage allowed just in one article is more effective than trying to "correct" (completely rewrite) this and every Wiki article that details fan site controversies and complaints targeting Apple. Perhaps there will be more efforts made to avoid hiding the truth and propagating Samsung’s talking points if these egregious examples of posting false information are brought to light. 

 

Or you can just complain in the comments that you were forced to read something investigative and factual rather than another blog-blurb expressing a trivial opinion on some tech announcement.


You honestly think shaming them is going to work?

post #26 of 147
It wouldn't make much sense for DED to make these changes on Wikipedia instead of writing this article.

A) He's a professional writer. Spending tons of time researching and writing for a volunteer project instead of for his employers/clients (like AppleInsider) is not the path to putting food on the table!

B) Any changes made to Wikipedia would simply be deleted anyway. Possibly with Samsung writing a check (they've been busted at other deceptive astroturfing) or more likely by fact-averse Samsung fans doing work for free.

C) DED is biased and is not good at controlling his bias. (Which could be link-bait trolling, but I think it's honest emotion taking over.) He digs up good facts, makes sound arguments, shines a light on misinformation from many sources, and presents things the mainstream media shamefully ignores. And mixes in 10 parts of that with 1 part exaggeration, snark, and cherry-picking of data. You CAN find great info in his work, and we're lucky to have him, but he is NOT 100% on the side of unbiased reason and evidence. Which is a shame, because it really damages the very points he wants to make. Given that, he's not the best editor for a Wikipedia article. It would be too easy for another editor to find his 10% bias (while ignoring all the Samsung bias) and use it as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hopefully someone will redo the Wikipedia article in a more balanced way—but it will have to be done very professionally with absurd extra care to avoid bias. Frustrating, considering the bias they have allowed there so far!
post #27 of 147

The sad truth is that the internet, as a whole, is nothing more than the whole world "gossiping over the back yard fence"..... and just like the old days with two neighbors doing the gossiping, the vast amount of the "info" being traded is a lie, untrue, exaggerated or just plain wrong. As much as we all would like to be able to believe the stuff we see on the net... we just cannot. Anytime something is available to be curated by the masses ....  it's only a matter of time before it becomes useless. (see Here comes Honey Boo Boo... if you doubt me). :embarrass

Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #28 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

You didn't seriously ask this question, did you?

 

You think a single person is going to be able to keep up with a whole legion of Apple haters/paid Samsung shills? I bet anything he adds or edits would be "corrected" immediately.

 

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".

If they're edited, it would be good to know why - in other words, whether there's a legitimate reason they reverted your changes. I've had a couple of minor changes reverted due to things like poor sourcing or an automated system mistaking me for a bot.

post #29 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post


You honestly think shaming them is going to work?

If you bring enough attention to anything you'll get results. With Wikipedia, the more people looking at a page and discussing it's inaccuracies the more likely it is to get corrected and, more importantly, stay corrected as it makes no sense for Daniel to rewrite the page just to have to be reverted again. Plus, there are people that feel Daniel is bias so a committee of volunteers is more likely to result in an impartial page using neutral terms.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #30 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


If you bring enough attention to anything you'll get results. With Wikipedia, the more people looking at a page and discussing it's inaccuracies the more likely it is to get corrected and, more importantly, stay corrected as it makes no sense for Daniel to rewrite the page just to have to be reverted again. Plus, there are people that feel Daniel is bias so a committee of volunteers is more likely to result in an impartial page using neutral terms.


You're probably right. It just seems as Eric said that the Samsung shills will be out in force and correct anything they (Wikipedia) might try to factually edit. Still though it's better to correct such errors rather than let such lies fester.

post #31 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Seems obvious to me. People who can't afford an Apple product hate the company because they can't afford it. They go over to Samsung and buy their cheaper products and try to justify their purchase by pretending it was the best option and it's what they would have bought even if they had the money for an iPhone or iPad. The reason these people don't have the money is because they have crap/part time/no jobs.
As they have extra time on their hands due to the lack of work, they have time to edit Wikipedia and add their take on events.
Or as we know it, lies.

You won't be able to stop these low IQ'd drains on society, they simply have more time than we do.

Last I checked some of Samsung's devices cost just as much as Apple's, and in some cases more.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 147

Hi DED,  please go to wikipedia and edit/create pages.  Each page has a history that any one can see.  No one can alter the history.  If your words are modified later they still can be read by going to the history.

post #33 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

DED Has a job, thus, he does not engage in the Sisyphus-ien task of editting a wikipedia page that will only be changed by samsung trolls .. instead he prefers to put his thoughts about the Wikipedia article into a real article that can be quoted. furthermore, if someone was smart they would add a link to DED's article in the Wikipedia sumsing propaganda article...

sisyphus : http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html

...changing the story back to thier distorted, disingenuous, view of samsung's history
sadly, and pathetically , Samsung is pissing there past history, where samsung has done some good.... (excavators, ships, heavy equipment, TVs, dishwashers?)
but the almighty buck calls, and they blow it all away copying...
I mean Koreans have a culture right ?.. why couldn't Samsung put some Korean culture into the cell phone design?.
or could it be that Samsung pisses on Korean culture and Apple actually embraces American culture?...
post #34 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post


You're probably right. It just seems as Eric said that the Samsung shills will be out in force and correct anything they (Wikipedia) might try to factually edit. Still though it's better to correct such errors rather than let such lies fester.

That's probably correct, too, but as we've seen with Wikipedia pages that have too many edits, excessive opined comments or trolling those pages get various levels of protection.

For instance, Barack Obama's wikipage is Semi-protected and the disambiguation page for "douchebag" is Move-protected.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #35 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post

Who has time to read Wikipedia except the Samsung and the hired gun

DED seemingly..

post #36 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

I missed this when it happened
might be the funniest thing in the whole escapade.

Funny indeed, but did little to sway the case.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 147

My Kids school will not allow them to use wikipedia since it lack any facts and two the kid when they find out what others in their classes are researching would go on to wikipedia and edit the information to include random stupid things which most kids would just copy and use in class.

 

Second and I wish I could remember who the musician was, I hear and interview he gave and he talked about how he went on his wiki page that fans set up and began correction information which was factually wrong only to find that when he came back his fans edit back to the wrong information and he could only conclude they were not interested in the what really happen but what they wanted to believe that happen.

 

Looks like the wiki site is back now and not reference to the person who blanked it.


Edited by Maestro64 - 3/28/14 at 1:08pm
post #38 of 147

OK, so who attacked the site? That's not cool.

 

But I half don't understand the editorial, Wikipedia is rarely, if ever, unbiased - especially when it comes to controversial topics.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #39 of 147
post #40 of 147

I just tried to edit that page. Samsung reverted it within two minutes.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial