Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

gnasher729 said:

If I disagree with her and her opinions, then obviously I do exactly what I'm doing here: I state that I disagree with her and her opinions. I state that in my opinion, which you are free to disagree with, she is looking at events through her own RDF which tells her that companies act in order to damage Open Source software, as if that was the goal.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you seem to always post your disagreement with her opinion when we're linking to her site for transcripts of hearings or HTML versions of motion documents.

You seem to always try to discredit her entire site, all of it, even the factual bits, based on your disliking of her current opinion because it happens to clash with your personal view.

Again, we're not linking to her site for her opinion unless we state "I think Pam has some good insight here" (and I do try to post that I'm referring to her opinion when I am).

The point I'm making is stop discrediting the factual information she posts because you don't agree with her opinion. Her site is a wonderful ressource, no matter who you happen to side with if you really need to side with a faceless rich corporation that will never help you.

gnasher729 said:

(and has also been caught with a 130 page booklet describing how their software has to be changed to be more like Apple's),

Click to expand...

You know that booklet doesn't say that. I posted tons of actual examples from that booklet that sure as heck don't say that and even examples that say the opposite : "We're too much like Apple here, change it".

Let's not go back there, there's a thread for that, it's been discussed.

gnasher729 said:

Of course you avoided answering the question.

Click to expand...

Yes, I avoided answering the question because frankly, that would be trying to take Judge Koh's place. I'm not a judge. Samsung made a motion, Apple reply, the judge gets to issue a ruling. You building hypothetic scenarios and trying to trap people into agreeing with you is meaningless and frankly, not very productive. We'll know soon enough, the hearing is scheduled for December 6th if I'm not mistaken.

gnasher729 said:

No, the judge asked a specific question (a yes - or - no question), which he answered correctly (with a "yes") and gave an example why the answer was yes. Hogan actually more than answered the question that was asked. At least the question we see quoted here. The list of examples was incomplete, but then the judge asked a different question before Hogan could give more examples.

Click to expand...

Now I get it! ou guys are related, right? Well he did answer, but not completely, there is just no denying that PERIOD! Why he didn't is a totally different story!

charlituna said:

It's not really that simple. It's more about taking something specific and making it generic. If the products are too similar in appearance, physical or UI, then it becomes easier for folks to believe they are OEMs. Computer on the left is clearly made by Dell, computer on the right is clearly made by Toshiba. But they are both 'Windows computers'. By a similar token, the one on the left is clearly labeled Samsung, the right Apple, but they are both 'iPads' right? Same as how last year I got a Dell and this year I'm getting a Toshiba cause its cheaper, both they are really the same thing.

THAT is the fear. That folks will think one is the Apple iPad, the other the Samsung iPad, cause they look the same. And iPad will become a generic term same as aspirin, Kleenex, xerox and even coke

Click to expand...

This STILL makes them dumber than a box of rocks IMHO. Seriously?! A Samsung iPad? Like I said--step away from the tech!

charlituna said:

THAT is the fear. That folks will think one is the Apple iPad, the other the Samsung iPad, cause they look the same. And iPad will become a generic term same as aspirin, Kleenex, xerox and even coke

Click to expand...

I don't think that being a generic term is necessarily a negative situation to be in.

For one thing, it means that most people will work into a store and say "I want an iPod" or "I want an iPhone" simply because it's become the common names for a music player and smartphone for many.

It goes in cycles, anyway. Before the iPhone came along, most people used "Palm Pilot" as a generic term for smartphones. You'd pull out your Windows Mobile phone and someone would nod sagely and comment, "Ah I see you brought your Palm Pilot!". Yeah. Sure. Yet I suspect that Palm was quite pleased

kdarling said:

I don't think that being a generic term is necessarily a negative situation to be in.

Click to expand...

YOU don't, but this folks that created the IP disagree. And as they created it, they have a legal right to have it stay non generic