Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

[Intarweb]

Originally Posted by M-O

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]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

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]

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]

Originally Posted by H2SO4

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.

[arashb]

"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]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

Originally Posted by arashb

"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]

Originally Posted by arashb

"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.

Originally Posted by Kaibelf

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]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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.

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

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]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

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]

Originally Posted by camnchar

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/2012/10/24/3...tent-rejection

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by JAT

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...

http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f0...r-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_1...layer_embedded

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

Originally Posted by VulchR

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]

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]

Originally Posted by M-O

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

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pacalis

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]

Originally Posted by Intarweb

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]

Originally Posted by TMay

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.