Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

J

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
pacalis said:
The real joke is that you guys don't realize that Samsung's been reinventing televisions since the 1970s.


,,
Click to expand...
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.
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
Smoothie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

pacalis

macrumors 65816
Oct 5, 2011
1,004
662
JAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
gnasher729 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is - I truly believe YOU believe what you wrote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Renzatic said:
Have you?
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
pacalis said:
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
Click to expand...
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

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,561
10,118
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
samcraig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

----------
JAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
JAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

darkplanets

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2009
853
1
TMay said:
Nope.

But I can read.

Maybe you should consider it BEFORE you post your opinion.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf
Click to expand...

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

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,561
10,118
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
TMay said:
Nope.

But I can read.
Click to expand...

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.
 
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

----------
BaldiMac said:
Which metric was that?
Click to expand...

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

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,756
10,885
samcraig said:
SNIP PERSONAL COMMENTS
Click to expand...

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

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.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15556158/

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

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,561
10,118
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
BaldiMac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,756
10,885
Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

pacalis

macrumors 65816
Oct 5, 2011
1,004
662
JAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Renzatic

Renzatic

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
9,561
10,118
Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
BaldiMac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

----------
gnasher729 said:
Actual, you do.
Click to expand...

Yeah? How so?

You know, if it weren't for your avatar, I wouldn't think you were cool at all. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom