Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:50 AM   #51
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Ah, you're only guessing, how surprising.

The fact is that the transcriptions don't say nothing about 10 years and the fact is that the question was totally clear, it didn't said any timeframe.
I would also say your guessing yourself. You weren't at the trial, you didn't see how the jurors were screened, what instructions were presented or when in the process that actually started recording these transcripts. As you said it yourself, this was pre-trial. Its not conducted in the same manner as a regular trial.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:54 AM   #52
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
Prospective jurors, however you want to spin it. Transcripts only mentioned what was said during the trial, not necessarily what was read by them if they were written instructions for instance. More then likely there were some sort of paperwork each person had to read and sign that would not necessarily be recorded by transcripts.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that such a piece of paper exists? Do you have any references to any other cases where this supposed ten year disclosure limit has been put in place? Can you think of any reason why a court would want to do so?
macsmurf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:56 AM   #53
bradgfromboo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Ah, you're only guessing, how surprising.

The fact is that the transcriptions don't say nothing about 10 years and the fact is that the question was totally clear, it didn't said any timeframe.
Woah woah woah... don't start getting logical. The sheep can't comprehend logic!
bradgfromboo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:01 PM   #54
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
I would also say your guessing yourself. You weren't at the trial, you didn't see how the jurors were screened, what instructions were presented or when in the process that actually started recording these transcripts. As you said it yourself, this was pre-trial. Its not conducted in the same manner as a regular trial.
Jury instructions are public, can you find where there is that 10 years instructions?
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:04 PM   #55
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
Do you have any evidence to suggest that such a piece of paper exists? Do you have any references to any other cases where this supposed ten year disclosure limit has been put in place? Can you think of any reason why a court would want to do so?
Do you have any evidence that no such time limit did not exist or that court instructions are required to be part of the transcript?

Laws for each state vary so to say, what one state might do, does not always apply in another state.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:08 PM   #56
gnasher729
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
You are not telling the truth.

"THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....21002201632770
To which he answered truthfully "yes". He was in some court case ten years ago and said "yes". Apparently he was not asked then for a list of all court cases he was involved in.

By the way, two years ago you might have taken stuff from groklaw as "impartial". Today, you can't. According to them, everything that Apple is doing is to destroy open source software somehow. Because Google, and by extension Samsung, is the defender of open source. Don't ask, I don't understand it either.
gnasher729 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:11 PM   #57
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
Do you have any evidence that no such time limit did not exist or that court instructions are required to be part of the transcript?

Laws for each state vary so to say, what one state might do, does not always apply in another state.
Do you have evidence that there is no tea pot in Jupiter orbit?
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:17 PM   #58
damir00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
"The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."
Good grief.

This was clearly going to be trouble the moment that moron went on public tv claiming he needed "to send a message".
damir00 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:46 PM   #59
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
To which he answered truthfully "yes". He was in some court case ten years ago and said "yes". Apparently he was not asked then for a list of all court cases he was involved in.
No, that is not true. He answered with his recollection of a suit he was involved in in 2008. Furthermore, he later stated in the Bloomberg interview that if the question had been open-ended he would have disclosed information about the earlier case.

It was, and he didn't.

Quote:
By the way, two years ago you might have taken stuff from groklaw as "impartial". Today, you can't. According to them, everything that Apple is doing is to destroy open source software somehow. Because Google, and by extension Samsung, is the defender of open source. Don't ask, I don't understand it either.
This information comes from the court transcripts and the Bloomberg interview. If groklaw is in fact biased I find it curious that no one else has been able to provide a reference to where and how this ten year disclosure limit was communicated to the prospective jurors.
macsmurf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 01:01 PM   #60
damir00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
He clearly didn't fully answer the question he was asked. There is simply no disputing this.

The question now is whether the judge should, or will, find that relevant.

If the guy has half a brain, at this point he would start shutting the hell up and letting his own lawyer do any required talking.
damir00 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 01:01 PM   #61
Glideslope
macrumors 68030
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Too Bad

Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.

Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.

Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.

Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
__________________
" A leader leads by example. Not by force." Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 01:07 PM   #62
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
By the way, two years ago you might have taken stuff from groklaw as "impartial". Today, you can't. According to them, everything that Apple is doing is to destroy open source software somehow. Because Google, and by extension Samsung, is the defender of open source. Don't ask, I don't understand it either.
Just because you don't agree with Pam's opinion doesn't mean Pam doesn't post facts, court documents, and transcripts.

Are you saying the court transcripts, the Apple motions, are biased against Apple ? Because those are pretty much just integral source material...

Groklaw is a very neutral source of information. Pam isn't a neutral player, but the information she posts, the facts she uses, are impartial as impartial can be as they are direct Court Documents. Her opinion is biased sure, but you're not forced to read her opinion now are you ?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.

Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.

Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.

Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
Apple actually has everything to gain from the current verdict being overturned and a retrial occurring. There's just too much coming out right now and people are doubting the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

This isn't good for Apple. Having the verdict hold up on technicalities will not dispelled the uncertainty and doubt around it. A retrial, with the same possible outcome, would. If anything, will all their loses elsewhere in the world, Apple either needs to drop the litigation tactic or secure 1 dead certain victory, which they have not yet.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 01:59 PM   #63
macfacts
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladinos View Post
Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.
"in the last 10 years" ... do you know who said that? The jury foreman in question. He was the one that said 10 years, not the lawyers, not the judge. There have been multiple news stories that mentioned this and those reporters even went to the source (the trial transcripts) and there is no mention of a "10 years"
macfacts is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:00 PM   #64
coder12
macrumors 6502a
 
coder12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven2k7 View Post
stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!
Everybody's stocks have been lowering lately (have you looked at Google's and Amazon's?) so I'd doubt this lawsuit and everything else that has been going on lately is what's affecting Apple.
__________________
Just plain nuts!
coder12 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:04 PM   #65
MacCurry
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.

Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.

Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.

Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
I agree nothing will come of this. Lucy Koh is doing this to protect the verdict of her court because she knows the jury award and verdict will be overturned in US Appeals Court. The USPTO has already invalidated an Apple patent related to this case dealing with the "rubber band" effect and others too will be overturned on closer scrutiny.

Yes, Apple wants thermo-nuclear war, but when your adversaries also have nukes all of this will become mutually assured destruction.
__________________
2006 Quad Core Mac Pro; 2008 24" iMac; 2009 MacMini; 2009 MacBook Pro; Couple of Airport Extreme routers, iPad Wifi 32GB; iPad2 3G 32GB; iPad3 3G 32GB, Assorted half-dozen iPods; Apple TV 2
MacCurry is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:14 PM   #66
thasan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Quote:
Originally Posted by benthewraith View Post
No matter what leadership changes occur, being sued into bankruptcy isn't something you forget, particularly if you get a chance to rake that same company over years later.
so? whats ur point? that he voluntarily say something that is not asked or considered according to the legal procedures?
thasan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:36 PM   #67
Glideslope
macrumors 68030
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCurry View Post
I agree nothing will come of this. Lucy Koh is doing this to protect the verdict of her court because she knows the jury award and verdict will be overturned in US Appeals Court. The USPTO has already invalidated an Apple patent related to this case dealing with the "rubber band" effect and others too will be overturned on closer scrutiny.

Yes, Apple wants thermo-nuclear war, but when your adversaries also have nukes all of this will become mutually assured destruction.
I have no problem with that.
__________________
" A leader leads by example. Not by force." Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 03:31 PM   #68
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
All these trials don't add anything to the innovations - just a waste of people's time and money.
At least, lawyers are happy.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 05:29 PM   #69
macfacts
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia820 View Post
Apple has ripped off tons of other companies as well. It's kinda of like the pot calling the kettle black.
As an example, here is a small list from the top of my head

1) the name Apple, the name iOS, the name iPhone (from Apple Corps and Cisco)
2) the mp3 player idea and how the files are accessed (from Creative)
3) the wifi sync idea and app icon in iOS (from iOS dev greg hughes)
4) the idea and look of iBooks (from the app delicious library) and that company's employees
5) the Swiss clock design
macfacts is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 06:16 PM   #70
iOsDroid
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Hey so why isn't macrumors posting about how apple has to pay all legal fees in the uk ruling due to how they handled the verdict ? (Misleading immature statements)
iOsDroid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 07:16 PM   #71
mr666
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
I agree that it isn't up to the potential juror to say "Oh, you forgot to ask me about...." It is up to the court (judge-attorneys). Even so, it is all stuff and nonsense. Samsung are whining about a mere $1 billion fine that will not hurt their bottom line, given the level of their business-- even considering just their level of mobile phone business. Samsung are fully aware that any banning of sales of phone models is useless. They produce all new models every three or four months, and the lawsuits take more than one year. They are being banned from selling discontinued models. They are whining like Bre're Rabbit in the briar patch. It is impossible to stop their copying by fining them a billion. That's chump change at their level of business.

Surely it is far cheaper to copy Apple and pay the fines than to put a few billion dollars into innovative design and development. What they hope is that by complaining a lot, and possibly getting a higher court to rule in their favor, that they crush the whole concept of intellectual property and protection outright.

Last edited by stridemat; Nov 11, 2012 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Cleanup
mr666 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 07:40 PM   #72
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Or it's that Samsung doesn't believe it copied and/or that the patents in question aren't valid. They were taken to court over them and now will fight to win their case like any defendant.

Last edited by stridemat; Nov 11, 2012 at 04:55 AM. Reason: Cleanup
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 07:44 PM   #73
DeathChill
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Or it's that Samsung doesn't believe it copied
I really hope that's not the case because they'd have to be completely delusional...
DeathChill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 07:57 PM   #74
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
I really hope that's not the case because they'd have to be completely delusional...
Perhaps the wrong phrasing. Perhaps Samsung doesn't believe that their products are copies of Apple's but their own take.

We can rehash the whole discussion about "copying" etc - but I'd rather not.

My point to the poster is that it's entirely possible and more probably his scenario is wrong. I don't think Samsung decided it was easier to get sued then to invest in R&D.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 08:29 PM   #75
ConCat
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In an ethereal plane of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clibinarius View Post
Them and every other court in the world and millions of Samsung costumers...etc.
Part of being a professional copycat is making sure your copies can pass any litigation. Samsung steals a lot, that much is evident. They're good at what they do, very good.
ConCat is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Responds to Samsung's Request for Information on Trial Jury Foreman MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 33 Jan 16, 2013 02:07 AM
Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 400 Oct 3, 2012 08:41 PM
Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 1383 Sep 5, 2012 04:46 PM
Proposed Jury Form for Apple v Samsung Trial kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 4 Aug 15, 2012 01:49 PM
Judge dismisses jury trial for Apple and Motorola case kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Jun 8, 2012 10:41 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC