re: Apple Closes, Urging Big Damages For Samsung
Mack Knife: InformationWeek attempts to provide an analysis of the news, using its skills of observation and experience. Where we offer our thoughts (the analysis), we are trying to add a level of interpretation and meaning behind the news. In a world where news continues to come from millions (billions?) of sources (when you include social media), providing the facts is hardly enough. In this case, our author is providing his observations based on attending the trial for the past weeks (and dozens of years of experience covering similar things). This is no different than any piece you would read in, say, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, where there are observations and points of view shared in lengthier coverage of a major news event. (This is a nuance that is a bit different than an Op-Ed or general opinion piece where it the author may be clearly stating an opinion, or coming down on one side of an issue or another.)
Having helped guide how we would cover this trial, and having read all of the author's pieces, I would say he's been pretty balanced and in many cases has even championed some of the Samsung points of view during the trial. Likewise, where Apple has scored its points, he has duly noted that, too.
It is, however, the jury's job to decide -- in that, you're correct. But it's also our job to provide a point of view. We hope we've earned the trust of our audience to do that, even when you disagree with it, which is your right and we thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion as well (and hope you continue to do so). Having covered trials in the past, I can say that it is nearly impossible to walk out of an experience like that without having a point of view, and when emboldened by years of observation and the depth of a trial, and the many many hours of research spent preparing for it (before and during), I believe we owe that point of view to our readers.