Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

[TMay]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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.

Your statements are confirmation that you are unable to comprehend the Judge Koh's order.

Samsung did not do due diligence. There was no misconduct.

No retrial.

End of story

the source document:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

That's all that this order was about.

----------

Originally Posted by Renzatic

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.

----------



Yeah? How so?

You know, if it weren't for your avatar, I wouldn't think you were cool at all. :P

Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

Actual, you do.

No? I'm not against the verdict but I can see how a regular person with no love for Android can find the verdict silly...

My mom is one person, she is a huge fan of iOS devices

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by TMay

Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

No, I understand it. We're talking about something else pertaining to the case separate to Hogan's answers during voir dire.

The whole jury misconduct thing was kinda weak to begin with. Even I don't think Hogan lied about anything, nor was he biased against Samsung specifically. I do think he was wrong on a few issues though.

[samcraig]

You must have a reading comprehension issue. Or you're being obtuse. Or something else. Because my comment had nothing to do with the notion that the foreman worked for Seagate, etc. My assertion had to do with how he led the jury and his suppositions around "prior art."

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than that. Have a lovely day...

Originally Posted by TMay

Your statements are confirmation that you are unable to comprehend the Judge Koh's order.

Samsung did not do due diligence. There was no misconduct.

No retrial.

End of story

the source document:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf

That's all that this order was about.

----------



Based on your statements, you're lost, especially as regards Judge Koh's latest order. But don't let that stop you from speculating.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

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.

----------



Yeah, because a 40" OLED isn't nearly as life changing as bouncy screens, right?

What's a "bouncy screen"? Sounds pretty cool.

[TMay]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You must have a reading comprehension issue. Or you're being obtuse. Or something else. Because my comment had nothing to do with the notion that the foreman worked for Seagate, etc. My assertion had to do with how he led the jury and his suppositions around "prior art."

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than that. Have a lovely day...

Which was irrelevant WRT the original post.

----------

Originally Posted by Renzatic

No, I understand it. We're talking about something else pertaining to the case separate to Hogan's answers during voir dire.

The whole jury misconduct thing was kinda weak to begin with. Even I don't think Hogan lied about anything, nor was he biased against Samsung specifically. I do think he was wrong on a few issues though.

Fair enough, but you originally implicated Apple for withholding information, so I guess you have backed off on that.

At any rate, anything else is beyond the scope of the original post.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by TMay

Which was irrelevant WRT the original post.[COLOR="#808080"]

Are you skipping posts in this thread? I never said it was in regards to the original article or issue in it. My comment transpired organically from the conversation that took place.

Or are you playing forum cop now? I can't tell.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by TMay

Fair enough, but you originally implicated Apple for withholding information, so I guess you have backed off on that.

I haven't backed off. I think the guy was wrong, and I worry about it's future implications. I just don't think he lied about anything.

At any rate, anything else is beyond the scope of the original post.

What are you talking about? It's perfectly cromulent.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by aerok

No? I'm not against the verdict but I can see how a regular person with no love for Android can find the verdict silly...

My mom is one person, she is a huge fan of iOS devices

1. There was a huge number of posts everywhere that basically claimed that a juror had intentionally worked against Samsung because that juror worked 19 years ago at Seagate. Ask your mum whether according to her life experience someone would hold a grudge against a company for 19 years, and then manipulate a judgement against a different company 19 years later.

2. There is the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade, which is very loud and very misleading. I'm sure that if your mother is explained what design patents Apple has, how little one needs to do to be not covered by these design patents, and how detailed Samsung copied these designs, she won't find the verdict silly. 99% of devices that have "rounded rectangles" are not covered by Apple's design patents at all, including the Galaxy S3, which clearly has the shape of a rounded rectangle, but looks nothing like an iPhone, and isn't covered by any Apple design patent.

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

You really didn't read that document did you? Nor do you understand the document. It's ok. It's easier to just label Samsung copycats and be done with it.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

Because taking note of what the competition does better than you and improving your own designs to match and surpass their comparative strengths is stupid, and something only copycats do, right?

Seriously. Think a little bit before you open your mouth. It'd save all of us here the small headache required to rebut yet another one of your dumb, tired arguments.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

1. There was a huge number of posts everywhere that basically claimed that a juror had intentionally worked against Samsung because that juror worked 19 years ago at Seagate. Ask your mum whether according to her life experience someone would hold a grudge against a company for 19 years, and then manipulate a judgement against a different company 19 years later.

2. There is the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" brigade, which is very loud and very misleading. I'm sure that if your mother is explained what design patents Apple has, how little one needs to do to be not covered by these design patents, and how detailed Samsung copied these designs, she won't find the verdict silly. 99% of devices that have "rounded rectangles" are not covered by Apple's design patents at all, including the Galaxy S3, which clearly has the shape of a rounded rectangle, but looks nothing like an iPhone, and isn't covered by any Apple design patent.

3. If you tell your mother about a notebook filled with 130 pages of comparisons between iOS and Samsung devices, taking note of how Samsung devices should be improved by copying Apple's designs, she won't find the verdict silly.

Now you're just changing your initial statement, you said all who found the verdict wrong were fandroids. You said nothing about knowing the case inside out.

Besides, if you visit some Android forums, some fandroids actually agree with the verdict. They find it harsh but still agree.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by pacalis

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.

No, detailed understanding. They are a leader in selling TVs, not in pushing forward new tech. They are winning the race to the bottom. I guess you and I are just not talking about the same things.

"Display provider"? wtf are you talking about, now? Don't change the subject and claim I've said something about your new topic.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by JAT

No, detailed understanding. They are a leader in selling TVs, not in pushing forward new tech. They are winning the race to the bottom. I guess you and I are just not talking about the same things.

Winning the race to the bottom. That's another one of those phrases I see around here all the time. Remember, if it's free you are the product, that is not insanely great. It just doesn't work, like lipstick on a pig and they just don't get it.

And what? All those firsts weren't pushing forward new tech to you? Why? Because they're simply "TV's". It's kinda hard to argue with you when you keep constantly changing around the definition of the argument. When you ask "what have they done", someone provides a list, then you go "marketing speak, what have they done". That's not really arguing. That's being obtuse to your own advantage.

Hell, being able to mass produce large OLED TV's above 30" is a pretty major achievement, let alone being one of the first to do so.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Winning the race to the bottom. That's another one of those phrases I see around here all the time. Remember, if it's free you are the product, that is not insanely great. It just doesn't work, like lipstick on a pig and they just don't get it.

And what? All those firsts weren't pushing forward new tech to you? Why? Because they're simply "TV's". It's kinda hard to argue with you when you keep constantly changing around the definition of the argument. When you ask "what have they done", someone provides a list, then you go "marketing speak, what have they done". That's not really arguing. That's being obtuse to your own advantage.

Hell, being able to mass produce large OLED TV's above 30" is a pretty major achievement, let alone being one of the first to do so.

I apologize if you think I'm changing the discussion. But the bold is a perfect example. They are not able to do this. Neither is LG, the other major player in OLED. (although, since nobody can do this, nobody is "major") You can say it, pacalis can say it, they can print it on a billion web pages. But there isn't one at my local store for purchase.

As I said, I am obviously talking about something else, and misunderstood the first post by pacalis. I will take my elitist attitude home and watch my 90" LCoS screen. (a tech Samsung doesn't even bother with, despite offering the best levels, that only Elite LEDs are starting to catch up with) You guys can talk about how awesome it is that a 40" panel can be 1.5" thin and that it is the peak of TV advancement.

Frankly, I don't think OLED is going to be that great, anyway. It hasn't thrilled people quite as much as we all hoped 10 years ago. And that is not about Samsung.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by JAT

You guys can talk about how awesome it is that a 40" panel can be 1.5" thin and that it is the peak of TV advancement.

Well not for nothing - but I think you mean .31" in thickness. Which - actually - is impressive.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Well not for nothing - but I think you mean .31" in thickness. Which - actually - is impressive.

That's not what she said

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by aerok

That's not what she said

Have you ever been in one of those situations where you've got a great joke, but you can't say it because you know it'll get you banned?

I'm there now.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Have you ever been in one of those situations where you've got a great joke, but you can't say it because you know it'll get you banned?

I'm there now.

All the time!