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 Nov 12, 2012, 01:45 PM   #101
DeathChill
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Are you saying that nothing Samsung does (in the cell world) is not inspired? And that nothing Samsung does is original or their own?

Because I'd argue that.
Uh, how did you read that? I never said anything close to that.
DeathChill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:46 PM   #102
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
Uh, how did you read that? I never said anything close to that.
That's how hyperbole works, right?
samcraig is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:49 PM   #103
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
I think that it's pretty darn clear that Samsung copied Apple.
You seem to be mistaking your opinion as a fact. Interesting.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:50 PM   #104
RobertoCravallo
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmanist1000 View Post
Anyone else tired of seeing that Samsung logo on this site?
Who`s fault is it, that it keeps coming up in a mac forum?

I used to think very highly about APPLE, that has changed drastically with all the lawsuits it is starting. So now we all know why APPLES hardware is so expensive: they need the money for lawsuits.
RobertoCravallo is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:54 PM   #105
DeathChill
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
You seem to be mistaking your opinion as a fact. Interesting.
Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.
DeathChill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:56 PM   #106
perealb
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
So are you giving up your Apple products with Samsung parts?

What makes Samsung's devices crap inside? Isn't Apple using Samsung parts. Are Apple products crap inside?

Do you realize how conflicted you are?
I didn't say everything Samsung makes is crap. I was talking particularly about Chromebook. And again you missed my point about Samsung copying Apple's design.
perealb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:59 PM   #107
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by perealb View Post
I didn't say everything Samsung makes is crap. I was talking particularly about Chromebook. And again you missed my point about Samsung copying Apple's design.
Ok. That still doesn't answer my question on why the chromebook is crap inside, now does it? I didn't miss anything.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 01:59 PM   #108
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.
Crazy that you would think you weren't trying to state "Samsung copied Apple" as a fact when you say "I don't think anyone can deny Samsung copied Apple".

Yes, people can deny it. Your opinion is that you don't think people exist that can deny "a fact" that is merely another opinion you hold. Funny how people can deny your opinion uh ?
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:02 PM   #109
DeathChill
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Crazy that you would think you weren't trying to state "Samsung copied Apple" as a fact when you say "I don't think anyone can deny Samsung copied Apple".

Yes, people can deny it. Your opinion is that you don't think people exist that can deny "a fact" that is merely another opinion you hold. Funny how people can deny your opinion uh ?
In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.

I'm not sure whose opinion you expect me to argue from.
DeathChill is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:04 PM   #110
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.
If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:05 PM   #111
iRCL
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris7777 View Post
Talk about the Judge throwing a hissy fit.

I might be a little more sympathetic to samsung, If they had not exactly copied apple advertisements, and packaging. But that is just way too "coincidental" to be an accident.

Apple disagreed with the decision, and playfully pointed out the Judges own words. He took offense and pitched a tantrum, by ordering to pay Samsung, as punishment for mocking his short sighted decision.
Oh my god you're the biggest fan boy of all time for this ridiculous post. This is a court of law not some facebook social exchange that happened
iRCL is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:06 PM   #112
DeathChill
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.
Of course you can. No one is telling you otherwise.
DeathChill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:08 PM   #113
paulbennett95
macrumors 6502a
 
paulbennett95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Which part of the statement posted by Apple was false? Seems the judge is a bit ******** because Apple mentioned the "not as cool" thing. Trolled I guess.
paulbennett95 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:10 PM   #114
RobertoCravallo
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.
@ KnightWRX
I am with you and do understand that Mr. DeathChill talked himself into a corner.....
RobertoCravallo is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:10 PM   #115
BvizioN
macrumors 65816
 
BvizioN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester, UK
Send a message via Skype™ to BvizioN
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_elt View Post
If you are taken to Court but then found not guilty why should you pay all your legal fees?
You shouldn't. But when i commneted about UK jsutice system i wasn't particulary talking about this case. It's in so many ways screwed and personaly have absolutely no faith in it.
__________________
Born Albanian.
BvizioN is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:11 PM   #116
scottsjack
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
That old, nasty Apple of Steve Job's days dies hard. A few more losses and Apple may be brought down from the heavens so it can get back to work (on new Mac Pros!).
scottsjack is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:14 PM   #117
BvizioN
macrumors 65816
 
BvizioN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester, UK
Send a message via Skype™ to BvizioN
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomjleeds View Post
Hahahaha!

Your level of intelligence is a joke beyond belief!
You must have some sort of brain power that we don't, to know my level of intelligence from a single comment. Must be from the fish & chips down canal street
__________________
Born Albanian.
BvizioN is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:16 PM   #118
perealb
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Ok. That still doesn't answer my question on why the chromebook is crap inside, now does it? I didn't miss anything.
Of course you think that. That's why I said you missed the point.
perealb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:17 PM   #119
ntg
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK - Rushden, Northants
Send a message via MSN to ntg
if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!
__________________
"Life without Walls"? - so no need for Windows!!
Life is a sexually-transmitted terminal illness with interesting side-effects!!
ntg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:18 PM   #120
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbennett95 View Post
Which part of the statement posted by Apple was false? Seems the judge is a bit ******** because Apple mentioned the "not as cool" thing. Trolled I guess.
Read more - and use less tinfoil on that hat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by perealb View Post
Of course you think that. That's why I said you missed the point.
What inside of a chromebook is crap? Are you deliberately avoiding the question?
samcraig is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:19 PM   #121
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill View Post
In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.

I'm not sure whose opinion you expect me to argue from.
And apple copied from others and those copied ...
k995 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:20 PM   #122
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg View Post
if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!
You either don't understand the ruling and/or haven't read much about it.

Apple was called out for providing misleading information. That is why they were ordered to post a specific statement. Apple didn't JUST post the specific statement - then ALSO posted more misleading information.

It wasn't just not in the spirit of the original ruling - but a stupid maneuver.
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:24 PM   #123
LordVic
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Stouffville, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg View Post
if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!
Actually, if you read the official court order as released by the Appeal by apple, Apple was under explicit orders as to what they had to say on the website.

Apple played a game with it and added more to it. took out some of it. And then did the good old "BUT" at the end to try and mislead.

They got caught. They have to pay. Thats all it came down to. They flaunted their own legaleeze in the judges face, and the judge wanted no part of it.

Apple could have you know, from day 1, just abided by the instructions the judge gave them.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post

What inside of a chromebook is crap? Are you deliberately avoiding the question?
I'd say the whole thing
but I'm biased in the sense that I think the entire idea of a Chrome OS platform is ridiculous
(but thats just my opinion and nobody needs listen to my mindless rantings about it).

hardware wise? it's a perfectly functional device that does most of what it's set out to do.
__________________
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
LordVic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:40 PM   #124
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ollyb View Post
While the original statement was misleading, childish, etc, which part of it was "false"? I would have thought that factual accuracy would have been important for them to get right in their eyes, even if they were going to disobey the intention of the statement.
From the ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/...12/1430.html):

And the matter added was indeed false. Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products.
But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad.
unlinked is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:56 PM   #125
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NutsNGum View Post
Pretty obnoxious behaviour by Apple. I'll bet the heels wouldn't have been dragged if this had been a judgement from an American court.
My guess is that someone in Apple UK's General Counsel and/or Marketing department will have his head handed to him on a platter as a result of this.

That said, it appears that Apple would have been in the clear by adding information about other cases, or even quoting the judge, but they didn't like the implication that the Galaxy Tab had been ruled to have infringed upon the specific design patents when that hasn't been the case.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Can you point to other decisions besides the California verdict ? If not, maybe my post was more factual than you'd like. I'll ignore the racism for now.[COLOR="#808080"]
Well, the California verdict was pretty significant. It's a little bit like asking "besides Hurricane Katrina, can you point to any other instances where FEMA screwed up?" I agree it did not include the design patent over the iPad, though.
KPOM 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

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 12:44 AM.

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

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