Look - I agree it's for the courts to decide. And no one here is getting the full story, all the evidence, etc
Doesn't seem to stop some (not saying you) from issuing a "verdict" either way, now does it?
?
Of course, that was my entire entire point.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
?
Of course, that was my entire entire point.
Meaning the six women and four men of the current jury, who are being subjected to testimony about things like object orient programming.
Some of this might be difficult for a trained person, much less a retired plumber and the others on the jury.
I think Judge Posner is right: patent trials should be decided by people experienced in the topics at hand.
(And before someone stupidly claims that this means that murder trials should only be decided by murderers... no, it's not anywhere near the same thing. It's more like, you wouldn't want a random group of people off the street to decide what medical treatment you should get.)
Last edited:
How is OOP difficult for a trained engineer?
But regardless, calling the whole trial unfair seems like a bit of stretch. Those MIT professors seems to think Apple have point.
Those MIT professors also have, in my opinion, bad research and data reporting based on their survey.
Who holds the Patent on Slide to Unlock? According to you it's Neonode that's the Inventor. Why don't they hold the Patent then? They should be suing Apple AND Samsung!
But Apple rolled right in, stole the idea and Patented it?? Are you sure
lol - We seem to keep quoting each other while still editing
Yeah, I had already noticed and changed that, because I thought it might get in the way of discussions.
To elaborate, I meant that it's not often clear, even to professionals, what a patent claim really means. Heck, they spent weeks in pretrial hearings trying to figure that out.
Well sure. They're paid $1,000 an hour by Apple to testify on their behalf.
Also, did you read my post #121 above about Professor Hauser's ridiculous survey results?
This lawsuit doesn't seem to be working out quite so nicely for Apple's image as the last one, Thats for sure.
The public release of internal documents that show that Apple was scared of Samsung's popularity and a lot of their comment in their internal documents make Apple appear to be very anti-competitive.
especially since these particular patents have failed to get any traction in other courts.
A lot of stats and figures have started to also come out about the plateauing of i-device sales (we'll have to see the financials that are coming out at the end of the month to confirm).
But I think Apple is hitting that point where they need to re-define some of what the'yre doing, or potentially get "left behind".
----------
Who holds the Patent on Slide to Unlock? According to you it's Neonode that's the Inventor. Why don't they hold the Patent then? They should be suing Apple AND Samsung!
But Apple rolled right in, stole the idea and Patented it?? Are you sure
actually, That does happen.
The first inventor of something doesn't always get a patent, either because they can't afford to, or don't think about it.
it is the case where often another company, sometimes an Apple, Sometimes a Patent holding company (troll) will come along, see the idea and patent it first just so they can have that sort of leverage / market position to be able to demand licensing deals of that patent.
its not unheard of and does happen. The Patent office is supposed to not approve these patents based on prior art, but often, as we have seen, they don't do that much due diligence and issue the patent anyways.
it then comes down to fighting against the patent to have it voided. Prior art (having it been invented before) often will invalidate the later patent.
Is that more or less than usual in a high profile case like this? Also, implying that they are bribing witnesses is a pretty serious accusation.
I'll look at that.
At no time was KDarling implying bribe. He was stating a fact that the witnesses were being paid by Apple's lawyers.
You're funny.
This is what I said:
To this I got this reply:
How is the sum they are paid related to their point? If not to imply that it may affect their judgement.
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm stating the fact that they are not unbiased random witnesses, in response to your comment that "Those MIT professors seems to think Apple have (a) point."
Of course they think Apple has a point. They were picked specifically by Apple because that's what they thought. Apple's not about to pay for an expert witness who thinks their patents are worth pennies.
(Perhaps you mistakenly believed that they were witnesses paid for by the court ??)
regardless if they're on Apples payroll or not.
Polling like this is an attempt to use Scientific method to gather statistical data for empirical evidence.
one of the primary responsibilities of anyone performing such a test is to make sure the sample size (the number polled) actually is representative of the population they are sampling from.
is 1000 people enough for an industry that has sold a few hundred million devices?
is the poll repeatable? thats one of the biggest parts of any scientific research. If you cannot repeat the same results multiple times, than there's no validity to the research. especially if you cannot repeat the results with different sample groups.
basically, without a complete documentation on the methods used to gather this data, there are way too many questions, especially considering this particular persons previous legal experience (having his research thrown out of court based on what i've mentioned above) doesn't lend him and his study a whole lot of credibility and IMHO makes apple look desperate here.
Sure, I agree. But how does the hourly rate affect what they think? I doesn't, which is why that is irrelevant. Unless of course you think it IS relevant, and include it in your post.
----------
Of course!
Which is an area an MIT professor is intimately familiar with.
Or perhaps he was just posting more facts that were necc without assuming you would draw some conclusion that wasn't intended at all. The witnesses were paid. That's the point. And Apple wouldn't call then for testimony if they were going to come to some other conclusion. It's not bribing at all or insinuation of such.
samcraig, you might as well stop.
he's refuted everything and anything anyone says anti-apple's argument without actually having background or evidence of his own. his own post history is full of it anywhere.
What's my background?
I did not refute your point. What exactly about my point is it you don't agree with, just so we can stay factual here.
No, it hope to use this method to have other manufactures making devices look very differently from theirs, just like how the phones were before iPhone. Nowadays, unless you hold a phone in your personal hands and flip it around to seriously inspect all of the minor details, non-expert normal customer could hardly know which company a smartphone is produced by, they are all TOO MUCH similar to each other.
I included the exact amount because I thought others here would find it interesting. (Plus it demonstrates that I have researched the witnesses.)
The fact that they're paid any amount, is relevant because they were hired to testify by Apple, not by Samsung or the US District Court.
So of course one would expect them to testify that Apple is correct. The same would go for any paid experts brought by Samsung.
That's why your comment that the two MIT witnesses "seemed to think Apple had a point", made no sense... which I think you now understand, and are trying to distance yourself from.
I think we've wasted enough thread on this, too. People can see what was said, and why. Thanks.
Yes, and it's a bit of appeal to authority on my part, but it gives support to the point of the patent. Which is why I brought it up.
Who holds the Patent on Slide to Unlock? According to you it's Neonode that's the Inventor. Why don't they hold the Patent then? They should be suing Apple AND Samsung!
But Apple rolled right in, stole the idea and Patented it?? Are you sure
Please go and state where EXACTLY I stated Neonode owned the slide to unlock patent? Because I never have, you have mis-read what I typed and gone on a flame war comment. Classy.
It is prior art and thus Apple has no right to hold a patent on the slide to unlock feature, it can have a patent on the graphic it uses if it wants but not the feature. And as stated already, Apple HAS lost court cases over their slide to unlock patent already due to this prior art, so, yes according to a court of law outside America, Apple cannot use the patent to sue others.
Well, no point discussing with you mate until you go and research on mobile phones for say the 5 years BEFORE the iPhone, then come back here
because you are WAY of the mark quoting the last 7 years only of smartphones as being all new and revolutionary.For instance did you know we had web browsing, fast data speeds, cameras, video calling, video messaging, email, picture messaging, touch screens, app stores, hacking communities, bluetooth, even optical zoom on cameras, zoom in features on web pages ALL before the iPhone showed up.
Here's just one example, Eten Glofiish X500 from 2006:
That's disgusting, but to be expected, typical jury that doesn't care or have a clue, it was obvious that entire trial was fixed to me anyway.
Last edited:
And others think the Neonode is a smartphone. It doesn't matter, since the patent isn't specifically for a smartphone.
It is simply for a "method of unlocking a portable electronic device with a touch sensitive display."
Perhaps you forgot that non-smartphones like the iPad and iPod touch also used it.
Although you did not, a lot of people knew the Neonodes existed.
It's been talked about here since 2007 or so. I brought it up again when Apple got the patent in 2010... see this post... and multiple times since then. Search the forum on "neonode" sometime.
Before that, it was known to people who followed smartphones back in 2002, and it was known to people reading smartphone articles written after the iPhone in 2007 such as this one which commented:
"To those who marvel at how a swipe from left to right unlocks the iPhone, well, the Neonode N1 was unlocking that way more than five years ago.
"And if the iPhone's swipes and taps seem futuristic, they are not. Neonode has been using them since the first N1 came out."
Last edited:
Well, it gets weirder. Now in order to prove how valuable these features are for consumers Apple wants to show the jury a blog post from T-Mo forums but they want to redact certain user comments that:
* reflect negative sentiment about Apple's lawsuits and the validity of its asserted patents
* refer to potential workarounds by Samsung and Google for the injunction patent.
Source: fosspatents.com
What next? Apple appoints judge and jury and they brings its claims to this puppet court?
* reflect negative sentiment about Apple's lawsuits and the validity of its asserted patents
* refer to potential workarounds by Samsung and Google for the injunction patent.
Source: fosspatents.com
What next? Apple appoints judge and jury and they brings its claims to this puppet court?
if I didn't know better I would now state Apple is taking the total p*** out of this whole trial! A BLOG POST submitted as evidence.........
Yeah, as I already stated, it just stinks of pure desperation from Apple.