PDA

View Full Version : Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple




MacRumors
Dec 18, 2012, 12:14 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/judge-koh-denies-juror-misconduct-claim-in-samsung-v-apple/)


In a pair of court filings tonight, Judge Lucy Koh published a pair of decisions in Samsung v. Apple. The first filing (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf) (via The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3778968/samsungs-jury-foreman-misconduct-argument-will-not-result-in-a-new)) denied Samsung's motion for a new trial regarding alleged juror misconduct by jury foreman Velvin Hogan.

Samsung accused Hogan (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/09/judge-will-consider-questions-on-jury-foreman-in-samsung-v-apple-trial/) of withholding the fact that he had been involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, a partner of Samsung's. Judge Koh didn't agree, saying in her filing that Samsung's attorneys should have dug up the information.Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/12/velhogan.jpg
Judge Koh denied a second motion (http://www.scribd.com/doc/117196813/Apple-Denied-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction) (via AppleInsider (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/17/judge-denies-apple-motion-for-samsung-injunction-tosses-jury-misconduct-claims)), this one filed by Apple, requesting a U.S. ban on certain Samsung products. The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents.In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung's illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple's motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.The decisions amount to more jousting in the ongoing legal drama between Samsung and Apple.

Article Link: Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/judge-koh-denies-juror-misconduct-claim-in-samsung-v-apple/)



HMI
Dec 18, 2012, 12:26 AM
And this was predictable when it was last reported.

komodrone
Dec 18, 2012, 12:31 AM
I'm almost out of popcorn.

iMikeT
Dec 18, 2012, 01:00 AM
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?

portishead
Dec 18, 2012, 01:11 AM
In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 AM
This is unfair and Apple is a terr...oh wait.

TheMacBookPro
Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 AM
In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.

The truth hurts.

And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.

BlueParadox
Dec 18, 2012, 02:49 AM
The truth hurts.

And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.

No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this! :o

BlueParadox
Dec 18, 2012, 03:26 AM
Seeing double

H2SO4
Dec 18, 2012, 03:54 AM
No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this! :o

Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 04:31 AM
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.

Apple wouldn't have risked it.
No Evidence.
Settled legally.
Move on.
Seriously.
Get over it.

H2SO4
Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 AM
Apple wouldn't have risked it.
No Evidence.
Settled legally.
Move on.
Seriously.
Get over it.

Get over what? You've lost me.

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 04:48 AM
Get over what? You've lost me.

It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.

H2SO4
Dec 18, 2012, 04:50 AM
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.

I was actually referring to the way you put your post. But cool it's covered now.

VulchR
Dec 18, 2012, 05:21 AM
Glad the judge did not overrule a jury - the whole point of a jury is that it prevents any one person from having too much power.

M-O
Dec 18, 2012, 05:49 AM
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?

they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Technarchy
Dec 18, 2012, 06:07 AM
http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu358/spock2112/haters-gonna-hate.gif

MacDav
Dec 18, 2012, 06:12 AM
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.

Jurors are selected by the attorneys representing both sides. Samsungs (grasping at straws) complaint is just sour grapes. ;) Whether this was a fair trial or not is above your pay grade. :cool:

gnasher729
Dec 18, 2012, 06:19 AM
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.

What conflict of interest?

Samsung lost and was ordered to pay more than $1bn. In that situation it is quite natural that you grasp at the tiniest straws to get a one billion dollar decision against you overturned. Which is what they did. In reality, it is totally unreasonable to assume that a person would be influenced in a case against _Samsung_ by something that happened between him and _Seagate_ _19 years ago_.

Maybe you are a bit weird that way, but I don't spend any time thinking about things that happened 19 years ago.

MonkeySee....
Dec 18, 2012, 06:36 AM
Good. **** you Samsung

Aluminum213
Dec 18, 2012, 06:46 AM
Good. **** you Samsung

You must be so happy as an apple executive





Oh wait

MonkeySee....
Dec 18, 2012, 06:51 AM
You must be so happy as an apple executive





Oh wait

I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung. :)

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 07:12 AM
Glad the judge did not overrule a jury - the whole point of a jury is that it prevents any one person from having too much power.

I'm pretty sure that's why Samsung filed the motion. Because they believed the foreman had too much power/didn't conduct themselves appropriately.

----------

Interesting what just happened in Europe re: Samsung v Apple

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/18/samsung-drops-european-lawsuits-against-apple/

Yujenisis
Dec 18, 2012, 07:27 AM
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Zing! :D

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 07:31 AM
Zing! :D

Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).

Intarweb
Dec 18, 2012, 07:31 AM
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Right after Apple 'reinvents' it?

Yujenisis
Dec 18, 2012, 07:46 AM
Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).

Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.

I doubt you will find it funny given your post history shows someone who is very much in the Pro-Google camp, which lends itself to not finding poking fun at their partners.

dBeats
Dec 18, 2012, 07:53 AM
This is the judge making sure there is no appeal and retrial. I think she's doing a good job. Just deny everyone anything at this point and get the judgement finalized already. Samsung, pay up and shut up. Apple, get out of the patent war trenches and just keep doing what you're doing, making products that 6 months later seem so obvious and intuitive that people think they shouldn't be patented - even though no one ever thought of it before.

Meanwhile, Apple's holding it's own against Android, while Samsung swallows up Android competition. Maybe Google should focus on the Frankenstein monster it helped create. I wouldn't be the surprised in the least if Samsung end up biting the hand that feeds in, again, with Google....

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 07:56 AM
Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.

I doubt you will find it funny given your post history shows someone who is very much in the Pro-Google camp, which lends itself to not finding poking fun at their partners.

If you say so. I understood the context perfectly. For something to be funny (at least to me) it has to either surprise or clever. Since Samsung copies Apple has turned into cliche and hyperbole - I just didn't it find it particularly funny.

To each their own.

p.s. about 80 percent of the personal tech I own is Apple. That doesn't mean I can't criticize it. In fact, I think it gives me even more right given that I am a customer. I'm pro-technology. It just so happens that there seems to be a lot of true hate for Samsung (which is not Google) and also Google which is based on b.s. So when I post to clarify where people are incorrect - that doesn't MEAN I am pro-google. It means I am pro-TRUTH or getting to the fact.

But believe what you want :)

mrxak
Dec 18, 2012, 07:57 AM
I'm surprised this isn't on the front page where it can get the most trolls and thus the most ad hits. I'm sure they'll find this story anyway, though...

Nothing surprising about this ruling though.

Kaibelf
Dec 18, 2012, 07:59 AM
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.

So in addition to Apple doing Samsung's R&D, they are supposed to do the work that Samsung's legal team are PAID to do? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

arashb
Dec 18, 2012, 08:01 AM
"The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents"

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can let someone copy your product, and the trial will establish that it's infringing on patents, but they won't do anything because you can't prove that it's hurting your sales?

Kaibelf
Dec 18, 2012, 08:02 AM
Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).

That's like saying RIM had nothing to worry about since they made phones for years before the iPhone came along. Even then, people used the same argument: "why would they do phones when people already make them?"

gnasher729
Dec 18, 2012, 08:04 AM
"The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents"

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can let someone copy your product, and the trial will establish that it's infringing on patents, but they won't do anything because you can't prove that it's hurting your sales?

Stupidest thing because that's not what it says. The motion is denied because there is no _irreparable harm_. That is no harm that can't be fixed for example by paying huge sums of money.

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 08:09 AM
"The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents"

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can let someone copy your product, and the trial will establish that it's infringing on patents, but they won't do anything because you can't prove that it's hurting your sales?

Since that was Apple's assertion - I guess so.

That's like saying RIM had nothing to worry about since they made phones for years before the iPhone came along. Even then, people used the same argument: "why would they do phones when people already make them?"

I never said anything about the marketshare being threatened or shaken up. I merely commented that Samsung has been in the TV market for years. It's not like they are following Apple into the TV market.

Where was any "worry" in my post. Where did I suggest Apple shouldn't enter the market?

Or are you intentionally arguing with straw man tactics?

Yujenisis
Dec 18, 2012, 08:20 AM
To each their own..

Exactly. Your post questioning why someone would find something funny strikes me as unnecessary and odd. You clearly do not appreciate the joke, but concede humor is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm pro-technology. It just so happens that there seems to be a lot of true hate for Samsung (which is not Google) and also Google which is based on b.s.

There are plenty of valid critiques of Google and their partners like Samsung, and I'll agree people here push the B.S critiques more often than they should. Likewise, there are plenty of valid critiques against Apple, and unfortunately much of the ones found in MR headlines forum are offered by anti-Apple trolls.

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 08:29 AM
Exactly. Your post questioning why someone would find something funny strikes me as unnecessary and odd. You clearly do not appreciate the joke, but concede humor is in the eye of the beholder.



There are plenty of valid critiques of Google and their partners like Samsung, and I'll agree people here push the B.S critiques more often than they should. Likewise, there are plenty of valid critiques against Apple, and unfortunately much of the ones found in MR headlines forum are offered by anti-Apple trolls.

For one - I didn't question why someone else would find it funny. I stated that I didn't find it funny.

Second - your use of troll, in my opinion, is hyperbole. A lot of people who are deemed trolls are nothing of the sort.

JAT
Dec 18, 2012, 09:23 AM
If you say so. I understood the context perfectly. For something to be funny (at least to me) it has to either surprise or clever. Since Samsung copies Apple has turned into cliche and hyperbole - I just didn't it find it particularly funny.

Seriously, Sam. You will have to find at least one thing on the internet funny before you should start commenting on jokes. It's ok to not have a sense of humor, but stop trying to force it on others.

Rocketman
Dec 18, 2012, 09:40 AM
Now that the judgment has been upheld over the objection of Samsung, Apple and the court are now free to determine the amount of the damages after the date the judgment accounted for in the $1.1B. I have heard estimates that figure could be another $500m or so making the total amount to be paid increase to about $1.6B.

Rocketman

camnchar
Dec 18, 2012, 09:49 AM
Now that the judgment has been upheld over the objection of Samsung, Apple and the court are now free to determine the amount of the damages after the date the judgment accounted for in the $1.1B. I have heard estimates that figure could be another $500m or so making the total amount to be paid increase to about $1.6B.

Rocketman

I doubt the $1.1B figure will hold, given that a patent or two has been invalidated in the meantime.

BaldiMac
Dec 18, 2012, 10:05 AM
I doubt the $1.1B figure will hold, given that a patent or two has been invalidated in the meantime.

Not yet.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/24/3549214/the-real-story-behind-the-validity-of-apple-bounce-back-patent-rejection

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 10:07 AM
Seriously, Sam. You will have to find at least one thing on the internet funny before you should start commenting on jokes. It's ok to not have a sense of humor, but stop trying to force it on others.

Yeaahhh ok

Here are some things I found funny on the internet. So I guess I am now "Approved by JAT" to post commentary... :rolleyes:

http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f0f0ba08c/yoga-for-black-people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6648229/siri-argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_S_1rV8WaE&feature=player_embedded

VulchR
Dec 18, 2012, 10:28 AM
I'm pretty sure that's why Samsung filed the motion. Because they believed the foreman had too much power/didn't conduct themselves appropriately....]

The judge appeared to disagree. Thankfully. Companies should not be allowed to appeal successfully simply because they disagree with a jury's verdict. It's not that I favour Apple over Samsung, it's just that juries are the last place an average person can have an impact.

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 10:31 AM
The judge appeared to disagree. Thankfully. Companies should not be allowed to appeal successfully simply because they disagree with a jury's verdict. It's not that I favour Apple over Samsung, it's just that juries are the last place an average person can have an impact.

I don't disagree.

Smoothie
Dec 18, 2012, 10:40 AM
Of the two rulings, the far more significant one is the denial of the injunction in favor of Samsung. Yet MacRumors headlines the juror misconduct issue. Way to distinguish yourself from every other "news" site.

pacalis
Dec 18, 2012, 11:09 AM
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.


The real joke is that you guys don't realize that Samsung's been reinventing televisions since the 1970s.


,,

wonderspark
Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 AM
I do find it annoying that news is not evenly distributed here. MacRumors is like the Fox News of Apple, focusing on only pro-Apple news, and either "missing" or burying any news that looks bad for Apple.

I think Apple either pays MR or donates Apple gear to the website to keep the news positive for Apple. It doesn't matter, though. All the real news is covered by real news agencies worldwide, so this effort here just looks bad to those that pay attention.

Intarweb
Dec 18, 2012, 11:13 AM
The real joke is that you guys don't realize that Samsung's been reinventing televisions since the 1970s.

My post was a dig at Apple, and the person that made the post I replied to, not Samsung.

pacalis
Dec 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
My post was a dig at Apple, and the person that made the post I replied to, not Samsung.

My error and corrected. I was blinded by the nonsense.

darkplanets
Dec 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.

This is spot on. Samsung could have denied the juror upon screening, but didn't. It's no ones fault but their own. As per acting improperly... again, doubtful. How would you prove such a notion? Someone is always elected to represent the jury, and people always have varying levels of opinions despite the best attempts at getting a neutral jury.

JAT
Dec 18, 2012, 11:50 AM
The real joke is that you guys don't realize that Samsung's been reinventing televisions since the 1970s.


,,
Would you care to give an example?

Here's an example of the opposite:
The only recent reinvention was Sharp/Pioneer Elite. They made LEDs what they SHOULD have been from day one. After Samsung (and everyone) had years to make a truly useful LED tech, someone else did. "Micro-dimming" from edge-lit tech, gimme a break. LED before the Elites was just another example of the race to the bottom in cost/price/profit, while making it look "cool" to trick people into upgrading for no reason.

cdmoore74
Dec 18, 2012, 12:05 PM
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?

The Galaxy S4 and the Note 3.

gnasher729
Dec 18, 2012, 12:10 PM
Of the two rulings, the far more significant one is the denial of the injunction in favor of Samsung. Yet MacRumors headlines the juror misconduct issue. Way to distinguish yourself from every other "news" site.

If you consider how much the Android fans have been going on and on and on that the $1bn ruling against Samsung would be invalidated because of that cheating, lying juror (which it turns out he wasn't), I think it deserves a major headline that all these people had nothing but wishful thinking. No evidence of any juror misconduct. No evidence of any misconduct by Apple. And clear evidence that the only reason Samsung and the Android fans believed there was something wrong with this juror was the fact that the ruling went against Samsung.

pacalis
Dec 18, 2012, 12:38 PM
Would you care to give an example?

Here's an example of the opposite:
The only recent reinvention was Sharp/Pioneer Elite. They made LEDs what they SHOULD have been from day one. After Samsung (and everyone) had years to make a truly useful LED tech, someone else did. "Micro-dimming" from edge-lit tech, gimme a break. LED before the Elites was just another example of the race to the bottom in cost/price/profit, while making it look "cool" to trick people into upgrading for no reason.

According to Samsung's website:

First 30 inch TFT-LCD
First to mass produce digital TV
First 3D TFT-LCD
First 40 inch TFT-LCD
First 46 inch LCD.
First 40 inch OLED.
Largest flexible LCD panel 2005
Thinnest LED TV panel 2009
First to mass produce 3D TV
First launch Full HD 3D LED TV
First RVU TV
First 55 inch OLED

----------

You can also go into google patents and find literally hundreds of samsung tv patents. Type in:

inassignee:"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." tv

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 12:55 PM
If you consider how much the Android fans have been going on and on and on that the $1bn ruling against Samsung would be invalidated because of that cheating, lying juror (which it turns out he wasn't), I think it deserves a major headline that all these people had nothing but wishful thinking. No evidence of any juror misconduct. No evidence of any misconduct by Apple. And clear evidence that the only reason Samsung and the Android fans believed there was something wrong with this juror was the fact that the ruling went against Samsung.

Sad thing is - I truly believe YOU believe what you wrote.

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
Sad thing is - I truly believe YOU believe what you wrote.

He is accurate.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 PM
He is accurate.

No, he's not. You don't have to be an "Apple Hater" to see the verdict was complete and total BS.

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 01:23 PM
No, he's not. You don't have to be an "Apple Hater" to see the verdict was complete and total BS.

Uhm, okay.

Your opinion is noted.

I'm guessing that you have had legal training?

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 PM
I'm guessing that you have had legal training?

Have you?

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 01:37 PM
Have you?

Probably not. Nor has Gnasher. But that's besides the point, isn't it. Point is - it's hyperbole.

No one here knows whether there is evidence. Only whether or not it was discovered.

And you don't have to be a Samsung fan or Fandroid to think there were issues with the judgement.

Nor do I believe that those "fandroids" or Samsung fans ONLY reason for having an issue is because it a was verdict against Samsung.

Hyperbole.

Mattie Num Nums
Dec 18, 2012, 01:39 PM
I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung. :)

So you must massively dislike most of your Apple product then?

JAT
Dec 18, 2012, 02:06 PM
According to Samsung's website:

First 30 inch TFT-LCD
First to mass produce digital TV
First 3D TFT-LCD
First 40 inch TFT-LCD
First 46 inch LCD.
First 40 inch OLED.
Largest flexible LCD panel 2005
Thinnest LED TV panel 2009
First to mass produce 3D TV
First launch Full HD 3D LED TV
First RVU TV
First 55 inch OLED

----------

You can also go into google patents and find literally hundreds of samsung tv patents. Type in:

inassignee:"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." tv
So, I ask for history and you copy marketing-speak? Lord....

The only one that applies is "mass produce digital TV". Everything else is just incremental changes, or doesn't even exist, yet. (how's your flexible TV doing?) Going from 40-46" is not exactly revolutionary, not even evolutionary.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 02:12 PM
Probably not. Nor has Gnasher. But that's besides the point, isn't it. Point is - it's hyperbole.

No one here knows whether there is evidence. Only whether or not it was discovered.

And you don't have to be a Samsung fan or Fandroid to think there were issues with the judgement.

Nor do I believe that those "fandroids" or Samsung fans ONLY reason for having an issue is because it a was verdict against Samsung.

Hyperbole.

It's almost depressing, really. Amazing how some people seemingly tie their own personality into a device to the point that they can see no flaws with it, and nothing but flaws when it comes to the competition.

Every single time it comes up, I ask the same unanswerable question. Why? It's just so...stupid to me. I like my iPhone. Doesn't mean I have to hate Android because I do. Yet some people do just that. Say anything positive about the competition or negative about Apple, and suddenly some mouthbreather comes out of the woodwork and starts calling you a "fandroid".

It's pure ignorance, plain and simple.

----------

So, I ask for history and you copy marketing-speak? Lord....

The only one that applies is "mass produce digital TV". Everything else is just incremental changes, or doesn't even exist, yet. (how's your flexible TV doing?) Going from 40-46" is not exactly revolutionary, not even evolutionary.

Yeah, because a 40" OLED isn't nearly as life changing as bouncy screens, right?

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 02:14 PM
So, I ask for history and you copy marketing-speak? Lord....

The only one that applies is "mass produce digital TV". Everything else is just incremental changes, or doesn't even exist, yet. (how's your flexible TV doing?) Going from 40-46" is not exactly revolutionary, not even evolutionary.

Don't bring the Lord into the discussion. How about answering why this even matters. It doesn't. It's not remotely germane to the story that was posted.

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 02:27 PM
Have you?

Nope.

But I can read.

Maybe you should consider it BEFORE you post your opinion.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

darkplanets
Dec 18, 2012, 02:37 PM
Nope.

But I can read.

Maybe you should consider it BEFORE you post your opinion.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

Interesting read. It again reinforces the fact that yes, the trial was fair, and the only person who hurt themselves was Samsung for not doing due diligence. Now about the magnitude of the award... that's up for interpretation, and could be debated until we're blue in the face and die from asphyxiation.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 02:42 PM
Nope.

But I can read.



You read things that reinforce your own beliefs in the matter. The whole reason I and many others believe the verdict was BS was because the metric the guy used to determine that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents.

Have you read about why he invalidated prior art? Have you read anything beyond "olol Samedung copied"? Likely not.

Though everything's set in stone now, so arguing it is a moot point. I don't have to agree with it, but there's nothing else anyone can do.

BaldiMac
Dec 18, 2012, 02:47 PM
The whole reason I and many others believe the verdict was BS was because the metric the guy used to determine that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents.

Which metric was that?

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 02:50 PM
You read things that reinforce your own beliefs in the matter. The whole reason I and many others believe the verdict was BS was because the metric the guy used to determine that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents.

Have you read about why he invalidated prior art? Have you read anything beyond "olol Samedung copied"? Likely not.

Though everything's set in stone now, so arguing it is a moot point. I don't have to agree with it, but there's nothing else anyone can do.

My biggest objection to the ruling is almost entirely based on the fact that it came down to the foreman's "test" for prior art.

And I blame the foreman for speaking to the press. If he had kept his mouth shut - I, personally, would have very little issue with the entire trial. I can accept the outcome of a trial. I find it harder to accept THIS outcome based on what has been revealed. And that's not to say Samsung should "win" or not be found guilty.

----------

Which metric was that?

Are you seriously asking? Because you've not only been around long enough - but you've been in threads where this has been discussed. How the foreman decided what was prior art and how illustrated this to the jury pool.

If you want more details - maybe you can do your own research. :)

BaldiMac
Dec 18, 2012, 03:01 PM
SNIP PERSONAL COMMENTS

How the foreman decided what was prior art and how illustrated this to the jury pool.

I remember your argument. I disagreed with it based on the fact that the patent being discussed was ruled by the jury exactly as you expected it to.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=15556158&postcount=307

However, I was asking about what metric Renzatic was referring to. Maybe it's the same as you. Maybe not. That's why I asked.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 03:42 PM
However, I was asking about what metric Renzatic was referring to. Maybe it's the same as you. Maybe not. That's why I asked.

It's the same. He invalidated prior art because Apple's implementations couldn't have conceivably run on previous generation mobile processors. He made this call despite the fact that the patent didn't concern itself with the CPU whatsoever.

BaldiMac
Dec 18, 2012, 03:57 PM
It's the same. He invalidated prior art because Apple's implementations couldn't have conceivably run on previous generation mobile processors. He made this call despite the fact that the patent didn't concern itself with the CPU whatsoever.

He made that comment in respect to a Samsung patent, not an Apple patent.

From Groklaw:
"Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."

As you would expect from your argument, the patent was not found to be infringed.

But, overall, his comment made very little sense. At the time, my guess was that he was simply confused during a live interview.

pacalis
Dec 18, 2012, 04:10 PM
So, I ask for history and you copy marketing-speak? Lord....

The only one that applies is "mass produce digital TV". Everything else is just incremental changes, or doesn't even exist, yet. (how's your flexible TV doing?) Going from 40-46" is not exactly revolutionary, not even evolutionary.

So, you're looking down the face of decades of leading technology in televisions, firsts in multiple tv platforms, design awards every year, tens of millions of units shipped, thousands of patents. Never mind the leading display provider for Apple... And you still wont concede that Samsung is a leader in TVs?

Maybe a religious reference is appropriate for your style of thinking.

gnasher729
Dec 18, 2012, 06:17 PM
No, he's not. You don't have to be an "Apple Hater" to see the verdict was complete and total BS.

Actual, you do.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 06:20 PM
He made that comment in respect to a Samsung patent, not an Apple patent.

From Groklaw:
"Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."

As you would expect from your argument, the patent was not found to be infringed.

But, overall, his comment made very little sense. At the time, my guess was that he was simply confused during a live interview.

If this ever comes up again, I'm going to have read through the entire case step by step to see what I'm hitting and missing on. I've got a good idea of the overalls, but there are still some things that slip me by.

----------

Actual, you do.

Yeah? How so?

You know, if it weren't for your avatar, I wouldn't think you were cool at all. :P

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 06:45 PM
Probably not. Nor has Gnasher. But that's besides the point, isn't it. Point is - it's hyperbole.

No one here knows whether there is evidence. Only whether or not it was discovered.

And you don't have to be a Samsung fan or Fandroid to think there were issues with the judgement.

Nor do I believe that those "fandroids" or Samsung fans ONLY reason for having an issue is because it a was verdict against Samsung.

Hyperbole.

Your statements are confirmation that you are unable to comprehend the Judge Koh's order.

Samsung did not do due diligence. There was no misconduct.

No retrial.

End of story

the source document:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

That's all that this order was about.

----------

If this ever comes up again, I'm going to have read through the entire case step by step to see what I'm hitting and missing on. I've got a good idea of the overalls, but there are still some things that slip me by.

----------



Yeah? How so?

You know, if it weren't for your avatar, I wouldn't think you were cool at all. :P

Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

aerok
Dec 18, 2012, 06:50 PM
Actual, you do.

No? I'm not against the verdict but I can see how a regular person with no love for Android can find the verdict silly...

My mom is one person, she is a huge fan of iOS devices

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 07:09 PM
Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

No, I understand it. We're talking about something else pertaining to the case separate to Hogan's answers during voir dire.

The whole jury misconduct thing was kinda weak to begin with. Even I don't think Hogan lied about anything, nor was he biased against Samsung specifically. I do think he was wrong on a few issues though.

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 07:30 PM
You must have a reading comprehension issue. Or you're being obtuse. Or something else. Because my comment had nothing to do with the notion that the foreman worked for Seagate, etc. My assertion had to do with how he led the jury and his suppositions around "prior art."

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than that. Have a lovely day...


Your statements are confirmation that you are unable to comprehend the Judge Koh's order.

Samsung did not do due diligence. There was no misconduct.

No retrial.

End of story

the source document:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

That's all that this order was about.

----------



Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

MacDav
Dec 18, 2012, 07:57 PM
It's almost depressing, really. Amazing how some people seemingly tie their own personality into a device to the point that they can see no flaws with it, and nothing but flaws when it comes to the competition.

Every single time it comes up, I ask the same unanswerable question. Why? It's just so...stupid to me. I like my iPhone. Doesn't mean I have to hate Android because I do. Yet some people do just that. Say anything positive about the competition or negative about Apple, and suddenly some mouthbreather comes out of the woodwork and starts calling you a "fandroid".

It's pure ignorance, plain and simple.

----------



Yeah, because a 40" OLED isn't nearly as life changing as bouncy screens, right?

What's a "bouncy screen"? Sounds pretty cool. :)

TMay
Dec 18, 2012, 08:39 PM
You must have a reading comprehension issue. Or you're being obtuse. Or something else. Because my comment had nothing to do with the notion that the foreman worked for Seagate, etc. My assertion had to do with how he led the jury and his suppositions around "prior art."

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than that. Have a lovely day...

Which was irrelevant WRT the original post.

----------

No, I understand it. We're talking about something else pertaining to the case separate to Hogan's answers during voir dire.

The whole jury misconduct thing was kinda weak to begin with. Even I don't think Hogan lied about anything, nor was he biased against Samsung specifically. I do think he was wrong on a few issues though.

Fair enough, but you originally implicated Apple for withholding information, so I guess you have backed off on that.

At any rate, anything else is beyond the scope of the original post.

samcraig
Dec 18, 2012, 08:46 PM
Which was irrelevant WRT the original post.[COLOR="#808080"]


Are you skipping posts in this thread? I never said it was in regards to the original article or issue in it. My comment transpired organically from the conversation that took place.

Or are you playing forum cop now? I can't tell.

Renzatic
Dec 18, 2012, 08:56 PM
Fair enough, but you originally implicated Apple for withholding information, so I guess you have backed off on that.

I haven't backed off. I think the guy was wrong, and I worry about it's future implications. I just don't think he lied about anything.

At any rate, anything else is beyond the scope of the original post.

What are you talking about? It's perfectly cromulent.

gnasher729
Dec 19, 2012, 04:32 AM
No? I'm not against the verdict but I can see how a regular person with no love for Android can find the verdict silly...

My mom is one person, she is a huge fan of iOS devices

1. There was a huge number of posts everywhere that basically claimed that a juror had intentionally worked against Samsung because that juror worked 19 years ago at Seagate. Ask your mum whether according to her life experience someone would hold a grudge against a company for 19 years, and then manipulate a judgement against a different company 19 years later.

2. There is the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade, which is very loud and very misleading. I'm sure that if your mother is explained what design patents Apple has, how little one needs to do to be not covered by these design patents, and how detailed Samsung copied these designs, she won't find the verdict silly. 99% of devices that have "rounded rectangles" are not covered by Apple's design patents at all, including the Galaxy S3, which clearly has the shape of a rounded rectangle, but looks nothing like an iPhone, and isn't covered by any Apple design patent.

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

samcraig
Dec 19, 2012, 07:13 AM
3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

You really didn't read that document did you? Nor do you understand the document. It's ok. It's easier to just label Samsung copycats and be done with it.

Renzatic
Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 AM
3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

Because taking note of what the competition does better than you and improving your own designs to match and surpass their comparative strengths is stupid, and something only copycats do, right?

Seriously. Think a little bit before you open your mouth. It'd save all of us here the small headache required to rebut yet another one of your dumb, tired arguments.

aerok
Dec 19, 2012, 11:51 AM
1. There was a huge number of posts everywhere that basically claimed that a juror had intentionally worked against Samsung because that juror worked 19 years ago at Seagate. Ask your mum whether according to her life experience someone would hold a grudge against a company for 19 years, and then manipulate a judgement against a different company 19 years later.

2. There is the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade, which is very loud and very misleading. I'm sure that if your mother is explained what design patents Apple has, how little one needs to do to be not covered by these design patents, and how detailed Samsung copied these designs, she won't find the verdict silly. 99% of devices that have "rounded rectangles" are not covered by Apple's design patents at all, including the Galaxy S3, which clearly has the shape of a rounded rectangle, but looks nothing like an iPhone, and isn't covered by any Apple design patent.

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

Now you're just changing your initial statement, you said all who found the verdict wrong were fandroids. You said nothing about knowing the case inside out.

Besides, if you visit some Android forums, some fandroids actually agree with the verdict. They find it harsh but still agree.

JAT
Dec 19, 2012, 12:57 PM
So, you're looking down the face of decades of leading technology in televisions, firsts in multiple tv platforms, design awards every year, tens of millions of units shipped, thousands of patents. Never mind the leading display provider for Apple... And you still wont concede that Samsung is a leader in TVs?

Maybe a religious reference is appropriate for your style of thinking.
No, detailed understanding. They are a leader in selling TVs, not in pushing forward new tech. They are winning the race to the bottom. I guess you and I are just not talking about the same things.

"Display provider"? wtf are you talking about, now? Don't change the subject and claim I've said something about your new topic.

Renzatic
Dec 19, 2012, 01:22 PM
No, detailed understanding. They are a leader in selling TVs, not in pushing forward new tech. They are winning the race to the bottom. I guess you and I are just not talking about the same things.

Winning the race to the bottom. That's another one of those phrases I see around here all the time. Remember, if it's free you are the product, that is not insanely great. It just doesn't work, like lipstick on a pig and they just don't get it.

And what? All those firsts weren't pushing forward new tech to you? Why? Because they're simply "TV's". It's kinda hard to argue with you when you keep constantly changing around the definition of the argument. When you ask "what have they done", someone provides a list, then you go "marketing speak, what have they done". That's not really arguing. That's being obtuse to your own advantage.

Hell, being able to mass produce large OLED TV's above 30" is a pretty major achievement, let alone being one of the first to do so.

JAT
Dec 19, 2012, 01:48 PM
Winning the race to the bottom. That's another one of those phrases I see around here all the time. Remember, if it's free you are the product, that is not insanely great. It just doesn't work, like lipstick on a pig and they just don't get it.

And what? All those firsts weren't pushing forward new tech to you? Why? Because they're simply "TV's". It's kinda hard to argue with you when you keep constantly changing around the definition of the argument. When you ask "what have they done", someone provides a list, then you go "marketing speak, what have they done". That's not really arguing. That's being obtuse to your own advantage.

Hell, being able to mass produce large OLED TV's above 30" is a pretty major achievement, let alone being one of the first to do so.
I apologize if you think I'm changing the discussion. But the bold is a perfect example. They are not able to do this. Neither is LG, the other major player in OLED. (although, since nobody can do this, nobody is "major") You can say it, pacalis can say it, they can print it on a billion web pages. But there isn't one at my local store for purchase.

As I said, I am obviously talking about something else, and misunderstood the first post by pacalis. I will take my elitist attitude home and watch my 90" LCoS screen. (a tech Samsung doesn't even bother with, despite offering the best levels, that only Elite LEDs are starting to catch up with) You guys can talk about how awesome it is that a 40" panel can be 1.5" thin and that it is the peak of TV advancement.

Frankly, I don't think OLED is going to be that great, anyway. It hasn't thrilled people quite as much as we all hoped 10 years ago. And that is not about Samsung.

samcraig
Dec 19, 2012, 01:53 PM
You guys can talk about how awesome it is that a 40" panel can be 1.5" thin and that it is the peak of TV advancement.



Well not for nothing - but I think you mean .31" in thickness. Which - actually - is impressive.

aerok
Dec 19, 2012, 06:11 PM
Well not for nothing - but I think you mean .31" in thickness. Which - actually - is impressive.

That's not what she said :p

Renzatic
Dec 19, 2012, 06:34 PM
That's not what she said :p

Have you ever been in one of those situations where you've got a great joke, but you can't say it because you know it'll get you banned?

I'm there now. :(

aerok
Dec 19, 2012, 09:06 PM
Have you ever been in one of those situations where you've got a great joke, but you can't say it because you know it'll get you banned?

I'm there now. :(

All the time! :eek: