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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 2, 2013, 01:19 AM   #51
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
This judge Koh needs to go. This is at most beyond any reasonable statute of limitations and at worst double-jeopardy. The ruling on the field is final.
Can you give any argument for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
Furthermore, if you're going to strike $450m, just do it but don't have another trial to redetermine how much of that shouldn't have been struck down in the first place. I mean wtf?
It is clear then that you don't know why the 450 millions have to be recalculated in a new trial


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
This has to be the most wishy-washy court dealing with patent lawsuits.
No, it isn't
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2013, 10:09 AM   #52
KdParker
macrumors 68020
 
KdParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
You're paying for it.
Not like the price is going to move down...with less lawsuits.
__________________
16g iPhone5s Space Grey; 16g iPhone5 White;
15" retina - MBP 2.6 GHZ 16 RAM;
iPad4 retina
KdParker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2013, 04:30 PM   #53
bearcatrp
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boon Docks USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
The trial was fair, why do you say it was not fair?
With apple's HQ being in california makes the trial unfair. No doubt there is consideration of reprisal from apple if it were to loose. Have it in a neutral state that doesn't litigate allot of patents. Definately not texas though.
__________________
2010 2.66 Mac Mini, 2 ATV, iPhone 4S, Dual X5670 2.93 Westmere Win7 PC w/48gb ram & 4930K w/32gb ram Win7.
bearcatrp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2013, 10:47 PM   #54
Arfdog
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Can you give any argument for this?



It is clear then that you don't know why the 450 millions have to be recalculated in a new trial




No, it isn't

Sure. United States law. No one accused should be subjected to trial over and over and over again until the prosecution gets it right. Prosecutor gets one chance, and that's it. Being accused of a crime is a serious affront. Better make the argument good.

Related: statute of limitations. You can't be accusing somebody of a crime 20 years later unless it's murder.

Doesn't matter why the $450m is being recalculated. It's when. Question is, why didn't the prosecution bring this discrepancy to trial or shortly thereafter? Why didn't they have all the facts? They had their chance, it's too late now. See above.
Arfdog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 02:24 AM   #55
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
Sure. United States law. No one accused should be subjected to trial over and over and over again until the prosecution gets it right. Prosecutor gets one chance, and that's it. Being accused of a crime is a serious affront. Better make the argument good.
This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
Related: statute of limitations. You can't be accusing somebody of a crime 20 years later unless it's murder.
This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
Doesn't matter why the $450m is being recalculated. It's when. Question is, why didn't the prosecution bring this discrepancy to trial or shortly thereafter? Why didn't they have all the facts? They had their chance, it's too late now. See above.
Really, you should inform you about the case because you seem to ignore even the basic facts about it. The damages discrepancy error was brought at the right time.

www.groklaw.net is a good place

And, by the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal one
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 02:39 AM   #56
Frobi One
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chippenham Wilts UK
Apples Perfect Storm

http://www.systematic-innovation.com...DLM2013-01.pdf

Here is an article comparing Apple and Samsung using a qualitative analysis of patents. It is a totally objective / dispassionate view - but highlights the futility of the battle between these behemoths.

(Note: this is written by a Guy I am in business with - not making any money out of this particular thing though - he was simply writing it to demonstrate how our patent analysis software tool works - and in fact how we approach some of the job of navigating the IP jungle for our clients - I got his permission to post it here in case anyone is interested)

Paul
Frobi One is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 10:31 AM   #57
Thunderbird
macrumors 6502a
 
Thunderbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Nope. The stockholders are paying for it.

Apple charges as much as they can get away with at retail no matter how high or how low their expenses might be.[COLOR="#808080"]
Nope. stockholders aren't Apple's only source of income. When you purchase an Apple product, at least some of that money eventually goes to Apple Legal, unless you actually believe they segregate their revenue streams, or there is no overall allocation of income, or even that their legal department is some sort of independent separate and self-sustaining company.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KdParker View Post
Not like the price is going to move down...with less lawsuits.
Price has no bearing on whether you're paying for it or not. As long as you give money to Apple, you're contributing to their lawsuit funds.
Thunderbird is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 11:57 AM   #58
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
Nope. stockholders aren't Apple's only source of income. When you purchase an Apple product, at least some of that money eventually goes to Apple Legal, unless you actually believe they segregate their revenue streams, or there is no overall allocation of income, or even that their legal department is some sort of independent separate and self-sustaining company.
Seemingly you have a very weak grasp of the topic at hand. Stockholders are not a source of income. Any conclusions drawn from that premise are therefore unreliable.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 12:15 PM   #59
thehustleman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabaker View Post
Samsung is risking another billion. Good. Love them to get what the copycat deserves.
So you also think apple should be sued for much more than a billion?


If you're against copying you kinda HAVE TO feel that way to.

Or do you admit to being incredibly biased?
thehustleman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 12:26 PM   #60
thehustleman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlez View Post
The deepest circle of hell is reserved for Samsung and Android
Why? Because they outdid apple time and time again and left apple still taking features?
thehustleman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2013, 07:06 PM   #61
Arfdog
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehustleman View Post
Why? Because they outdid apple time and time again and left apple still taking features?
How does making way less money than Apple equate to "outdid Apple"?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over




This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over



Really, you should inform you about the case because you seem to ignore even the basic facts about it. The damages discrepancy error was brought at the right time.

www.groklaw.net is a good place

And, by the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal one
"The new damages trial will take place on November 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, 2013. Eight jurors will be selected, and for the purposes of their new damages verdict, the first jury's infringement findings will be law of the case, as the court rejected Samsung's argument that a new trial also has to re-evaluate liability issues."

The prosecution/judge should only get one shot at handing out a sentence. It's ok to re-sentence if it will be a lighter sentence, but not for a harsher one.

If this were allowed in other smaller cases, we'd have an unending trial system. Great observation, this is not a criminal case. You should probably read that website yourself.
Arfdog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 05:30 AM   #62
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arfdog View Post
How does making way less money than Apple equate to "outdid Apple"?

----------



"The new damages trial will take place on November 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, 2013. Eight jurors will be selected, and for the purposes of their new damages verdict, the first jury's infringement findings will be law of the case, as the court rejected Samsung's argument that a new trial also has to re-evaluate liability issues."

The prosecution/judge should only get one shot at handing out a sentence. It's ok to re-sentence if it will be a lighter sentence, but not for a harsher one.

If this were allowed in other smaller cases, we'd have an unending trial system. Great observation, this is not a criminal case. You should probably read that website yourself.
It is not a re sentence and it is not a new trial to look if there is infringement, it is only to calculate the damages because they were calculated wrongly.


But I leave, it is clear that you don't want to know what the thing is about
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 09:41 AM   #63
pirg
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
It is not a re sentence and it is not a new trial to look if there is infringement, it is only to calculate the damages because they were calculated wrongly.


But I leave, it is clear that you don't want to know what the thing is about
This is a point people forget. Samsung is guilty of infringement in this case. They're not going to be innocent suddenly after this damages trial is over. Apple doesn't need a billion dollars...they make that weekly.
pirg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 01:43 PM   #64
Thunderbird
macrumors 6502a
 
Thunderbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Seemingly you have a very weak grasp of the topic at hand. Stockholders are not a source of income. Any conclusions drawn from that premise are therefore unreliable.
You might as well quit while you're behind. "Stockholders are not a source of income"? That kind of nonsensical statement just undermined what knowledge about the topic you thought you had. When combined with "stockholders are paying for it", you've basically checked out of the discussion. If stockholders aren't a source of income, they can't also be paying for it.

If you don't know how companies raise funds in different ways, or how total revenue gets allocated, I'd suggest reading up on it first.
Thunderbird is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 01:50 PM   #65
Toltepeceno
macrumors 6502a
 
Toltepeceno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Martin Toltepec, Edo MX, MX
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonAppleSeed View Post
How will the outcome of this trial affect the snappiness of safari?
Depends, positive decisions for apple result in a snappier safari 84% of the time.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nia820 View Post
Not this crap again. Seriously Apple and Samsung both need to focus on keeping up their quality smartphones and stop all this bickering. my 2nd grade students don't fight this much.
They should just stop the fighting and get a room. They are in love and don't yet realize it.
__________________
Only fanboys use the word "troll".
Saludos!
Toltepeceno is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 09:25 PM   #66
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
You might as well quit while you're behind. "Stockholders are not a source of income"? That kind of nonsensical statement just undermined what knowledge about the topic you thought you had. When combined with "stockholders are paying for it", you've basically checked out of the discussion. If stockholders aren't a source of income, they can't also be paying for it.

If you don't know how companies raise funds in different ways, or how total revenue gets allocated, I'd suggest reading up on it first.
Stockholders "pay for it" by losing profits. They are not a source of income to a company.

the statements are not inconsistent.
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2013, 08:15 PM   #67
Thunderbird
macrumors 6502a
 
Thunderbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Stockholders "pay for it" by losing profits. They are not a source of income to a company.

the statements are not inconsistent.
Dude, if stockholders are not a source of income to a company, no company would ever issue them in the first place, nor would there be IPOs. Stockholders are not an ongoing source of income, granted. But to say that stockholders pay for legal costs via lost profits is begging the question of where those profits come from. To lose profits, a company must already have them. Those profits are generated through sales revenue (i.e. you and I), not stockholders.

And legal fees, like all other expenses, come out of revenue. Apple Legal does not print its own money supply.
Thunderbird is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2013, 09:53 PM   #68
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
And legal fees, like all other expenses, come out of revenue.
Bingo.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2013, 03:18 PM   #69
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
[/COLOR]

The second trial has nothing to do with appeal odds



Instructions were detailed and clear, the problem was the jury screwing big time the damages calculation




The trial was fair, why do you say it was not fair?
Everything impacts appeal odds. Having a rehearing for part of the damages undoubtedly will have an impact on issues that may lead to a succesful appeal.
marksman is offline   0 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 Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 216 May 11, 2014 01:00 AM
Apple Marketing Chief Phil Schiller Appears On the Witness Stand in Apple/Samsung Damages Trial MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 129 Nov 21, 2013 09:12 AM
Judge Voids Nearly Half of Apple's $1 Billion Judgment Against Samsung, Calls for New Trial to Settle Revised Damages MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 214 Mar 8, 2013 11:36 AM
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 03:46 PM
Apple ordered to pay damages to Samsung by Dutch court Androidpwns iPad 5 Jun 21, 2012 10:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.

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

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