Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 18, 2012, 11:50 AM   #51
JAT
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
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.
__________________
-- Spiky
JAT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:05 PM   #52
cdmoore74
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?
The Galaxy S4 and the Note 3.
cdmoore74 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:10 PM   #53
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoothie View Post
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.

Last edited by dejo; Dec 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Trolling.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:38 PM   #54
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
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
pacalis is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:55 PM   #55
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
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.

Last edited by dejo; Dec 19, 2012 at 03:32 PM. Reason: Quoted post edited.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:13 PM   #56
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Sad thing is - I truly believe YOU believe what you wrote.
He is accurate.
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 PM   #57
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
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.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:23 PM   #58
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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?
TMay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 PM   #59
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
I'm guessing that you have had legal training?
Have you?
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:37 PM   #60
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:39 PM   #61
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
 
Mattie Num Nums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeySee.... View Post
I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung.
So you must massively dislike most of your Apple product then?
__________________
I like Apple stuff but, I am not in the Apple cult.
Mattie Num Nums is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:06 PM   #62
JAT
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
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.
__________________
-- Spiky
JAT is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:12 PM   #63
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
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?
Renzatic is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:14 PM   #64
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
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.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:27 PM   #65
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:37 PM   #66
darkplanets
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
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.
darkplanets is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:42 PM   #67
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
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.
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:47 PM   #68
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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?
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:50 PM   #69
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
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.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 03:01 PM   #70
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
SNIP PERSONAL COMMENTS
Quote:
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...&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.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 03:42 PM   #71
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
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.
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 03:57 PM   #72
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 04:10 PM   #73
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
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.
pacalis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:17 PM   #74
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.
gnasher729 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:20 PM   #75
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
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
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.

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

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