Well they would have burned it to blu-ray - but....
And they would have put it up on iTunes - but that would break their vow of secrecy...
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 Requests Sanctions Against Samsung Delivering Default Victory in Design Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well they would have burned it to blu-ray - but....
And they would have put it up on iTunes - but that would break their vow of secrecy...
Has today's live blog been posted?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...-to-theatrics-in-apple-patent-suit-live-blog/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...-to-theatrics-in-apple-patent-suit-live-blog/
The source I read made a mistake. Those words were taken from the proposed order, not an actual ruling, as the site erroneously claimed. In any event, the judge did strike the motion requesting sanctions, and polled the jury. None appear to have been tampered with.
"Koh didn't take up Apple's suggestion that their opponents be sanctioned, or that the jury be given additional instructions to discount Samsung evidence. But she did take a few minutes to reprimand Samsung, reading quickly through what seemed like a prepared statement.
Sending out a press release was "a willfull attempt to propagate that evidence they knew had been excluded," Koh said. "Both Samsung and Quinn Emanuel were on notice that the possibility of a jury taint was real.""
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/tough-talk-for-samsungs-lawyers-but-no-sanctions/
Feel free to read "frivolous" into that, but the judge neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
and I've already said that I agree she didn't use a strong word like
what exactly are you going on about?
You just said "the message is the same" [as frivolous] in your post above. It's at the top of the page. I was just pointing out that it's not at all frivolous. She didn't grant it, but she admonished Samsung's lawyers and polled the jury. She obviously took it seriously.
Perhaps just my interpretations - so feel free to comment. But the pasted below from Forbes blog makes we wonder how dumb Schiller thinks customers are. You can argue that people are buying products because they are led to them and being told they are "just like an iPad" or "iphone" - but they aren't buying hem because the products look similar. Now yes - you might be argue that "some" - but I don't think that # puts any real dent in sales. Again - my opinion.
Further - I also find it interesting how much Apple knocks the competition but yet feels that they are diminishing Apple's Products value. What I mean is - how many people who might have a crappy experience with a Samsung device are going to relate that to Apple. I am not saying it doesn't diminish the value Apple has created. My question is more about "dilutes the way customers sees Apple."
With the products themselves branded with Samsung on the front and on the box - there's quite a few people who think they would be walking away with an Apple device. And that's the bulk of what this trial is about. Not the user experience and whether or not using a Galaxy devices is the same or similar to the iPhone - but that they look alike in that it causes customer confusion.
I do understand Apple's position. They believe they created a product that was like no other and now their competition is eating away at their sales with designs similar to theirs. I imagine that's very frustrating.
I think having copycat products in the marketplace makes our job as marketers more difficult, it confuses the customers, diminishes the value that Apple has created and it dilutes the way customers sees Apple.
I absolutely believe it has had an impact on our sales, Schiller says. Some customers are choosing to buy a Samsung product because it looks a lot like the iPhone or the iPad. That also affects then the subsequent purchases because youre buying into an ecosystem and what other products members of a family may buy I think it has effects on initial sales as well as related sales.
Further - I also find it interesting how much Apple knocks the competition but yet feels that they are diminishing Apple's Products value. What I mean is - how many people who might have a crappy experience with a Samsung device are going to relate that to Apple. I am not saying it doesn't diminish the value Apple has created. My question is more about "dilutes the way customers sees Apple."
With the products themselves branded with Samsung on the front and on the box - there's quite a few people who think they would be walking away with an Apple device. And that's the bulk of what this trial is about. Not the user experience and whether or not using a Galaxy devices is the same or similar to the iPhone - but that they look alike in that it causes customer confusion.
I do understand Apple's position. They believe they created a product that was like no other and now their competition is eating away at their sales with designs similar to theirs. I imagine that's very frustrating.
I think having copycat products in the marketplace makes our job as marketers more difficult, it confuses the customers, diminishes the value that Apple has created and it dilutes the way customers sees Apple.
I absolutely believe it has had an impact on our sales, Schiller says. Some customers are choosing to buy a Samsung product because it looks a lot like the iPhone or the iPad. That also affects then the subsequent purchases because youre buying into an ecosystem and what other products members of a family may buy I think it has effects on initial sales as well as related sales.
Apple’s rolling list of its anticipated first seven trial witnesses.
- Philip Schiller
- Scott Forstall
- Justin Denison - Chief Strategy Officer at Samsung Telecommunications America
- Wookyun Kho - Engineer at Samsung Electronics - invented end of page glow
- Peter Bressler - Product Design expert - probably validate Apple design patents
- Susan Kare - Designer of the original B&W Mac icons
- Ravin Balakrishnan - UI designer at U of Toronto. Bumptop etc
Apple's total list of anticipated witnesses:
1. Ravin Balakrishnan
2. Tony Blevins
3. Peter Bressler
4. Justin Denison
5. Richard Donaldson
6. Paul Dourish
7. Scott Forstall
8. Tony Givargis - Professor of Computer Science at U of California ?
9. Susan Kare
10. Hyong Kim - EE Dept, Carnegie Mellon ?
11. Ed Knightly
12. Terry Musika
13. Janusz Ordover
14. Phil Schiller
15. Karan Singh
16. Mani Srivastava
17. Chris Stringer
18. Boris Teksler
19. Michael Walker
20. Russell Winer
Apple also reserves the right to call additional witnesses at trial.
Last edited:
Witnesses Samsung Intends to Call Live or By Deposition
1. Robert John Anders: Mr. Anders is an expert who will testify regarding non-infringement analyses for the design patents and trade dress claims.
2. Benjamin Bederson: This witness will provide testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '163 and '381 patents.
3. Adam Bogue: witness will provide testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 and 381 patents.
4. Clifton Forlines: testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 and '381 patents.
5. Stephen Gray: witness is a technical expert and may provide testimony relating to Apple's '163 and '915 patents.
6. Richard Howarth: regarding the design and development of Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products, its design patents, design patent functionality, trade dress functionality, trade dress non-infringement, trade dress non-dilution, lack of fame, design patent invalidity, trade dress invalidity, design patent claim construction, and design patent non-infringement.
7. Jeffrey Johnson: witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Apple's '381 patent.
8. Vince O'Brien: will testify about Samsung's damages from Apple's infringement of Samsung's feature patents.
9. Marcus Paltian: testimony relating to Samsung's '516, '941, and '604 patents the Apple products accused of infringing those patents.
10. Hyoung Shin Park: Ms. Park will testify regarding Samsung design, including design of F700 and contemporaneous designs.
11. Douglas Satzger: design and development of Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products, its design patents,
12. Timothy Sheppard: Mr. Sheppard will authenticate Samsung's financial data; testify that all of Samsung's costs are attributable to the manufacture and sale of the accused products; testify as to the different
13. Steven Sinclair: 5 testimony regarding the marketing of and consumer demand for the design of Apple's products and the invalidity of Apple's claimed trade dresses, trade dress non-infringement, lack of dilution, lack of fame, design patent invalidity, design patent non-infringement and design patent claim construction.
14. Dale Sohn: may testify regarding Samsung's innovative technology and products.
15. Eric Stasik: Stasik is an expert on the history, nature and practice of FRAND licensing in the mobile telecommunications industry, including the nature and purpose of the ETSI FRAND obligation and its application in practice. holdings of companies and assigning values to them, appropriate bases for calculating FRAND royalties, and the appropriateness of certain proposed FRAND rates, including any issues concerning the FRAND-related defenses that have been asserted by Apple. He will testify on methodologies for assessing the essential patent
16. David Teece: an expert in economic issues related to ETSI standardization and FRAND licensing.
17. Andries Van Dam: This witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Apple's '381 patent.
18. Michael Wagner: Wagner will provide testimony rebutting Apple's damages claims.
19. Tim Williams: a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Samsung's '516 and '941 patents.
20. Woodward Yang: witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Samsung's '460 and '893 patents.
1. Robert John Anders: Mr. Anders is an expert who will testify regarding non-infringement analyses for the design patents and trade dress claims.
2. Benjamin Bederson: This witness will provide testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '163 and '381 patents.
3. Adam Bogue: witness will provide testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 and 381 patents.
4. Clifton Forlines: testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 and '381 patents.
5. Stephen Gray: witness is a technical expert and may provide testimony relating to Apple's '163 and '915 patents.
6. Richard Howarth: regarding the design and development of Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products, its design patents, design patent functionality, trade dress functionality, trade dress non-infringement, trade dress non-dilution, lack of fame, design patent invalidity, trade dress invalidity, design patent claim construction, and design patent non-infringement.
7. Jeffrey Johnson: witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Apple's '381 patent.
8. Vince O'Brien: will testify about Samsung's damages from Apple's infringement of Samsung's feature patents.
9. Marcus Paltian: testimony relating to Samsung's '516, '941, and '604 patents the Apple products accused of infringing those patents.
10. Hyoung Shin Park: Ms. Park will testify regarding Samsung design, including design of F700 and contemporaneous designs.
11. Douglas Satzger: design and development of Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products, its design patents,
12. Timothy Sheppard: Mr. Sheppard will authenticate Samsung's financial data; testify that all of Samsung's costs are attributable to the manufacture and sale of the accused products; testify as to the different
13. Steven Sinclair: 5 testimony regarding the marketing of and consumer demand for the design of Apple's products and the invalidity of Apple's claimed trade dresses, trade dress non-infringement, lack of dilution, lack of fame, design patent invalidity, design patent non-infringement and design patent claim construction.
14. Dale Sohn: may testify regarding Samsung's innovative technology and products.
15. Eric Stasik: Stasik is an expert on the history, nature and practice of FRAND licensing in the mobile telecommunications industry, including the nature and purpose of the ETSI FRAND obligation and its application in practice. holdings of companies and assigning values to them, appropriate bases for calculating FRAND royalties, and the appropriateness of certain proposed FRAND rates, including any issues concerning the FRAND-related defenses that have been asserted by Apple. He will testify on methodologies for assessing the essential patent
16. David Teece: an expert in economic issues related to ETSI standardization and FRAND licensing.
17. Andries Van Dam: This witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Apple's '381 patent.
18. Michael Wagner: Wagner will provide testimony rebutting Apple's damages claims.
19. Tim Williams: a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Samsung's '516 and '941 patents.
20. Woodward Yang: witness is a technical expert and will provide testimony relating to Samsung's '460 and '893 patents.
I wonder if samsungs number 10 witness may have some of her testimony disallowed? especially if she tries to reference disallowed evidence. she is supposed to be talking about the design of the f700. she will need to be careful not to reference the disallowed evidence.
This isn't about me. Is it?
But here's a quote from a guy who knew exactly what Android is:
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product.
I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
- Steve Jobs
----------
Um, no. Sony's designs were inspired by iPod. Duh.
----------
It worked! YES! I got you to post, didn't I?
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you serious? How is this misguided? I'm no fan of Google therefore anything with there name associated makes me uncomfortable. Open software and choice are at this point in software development VERY VERY important. Apple is locking down OSX, MS is on that same path with the MS store GNU, Android, Linux and the other open source kernels are the only thing left we control.
Last edited by a moderator:
And they just might live forever. (Depending on the outcome of current and future trials, of course.)
Not sure if this was posted somewhere yet, but I had to laugh at it:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/3/3217057/day-two-testimony-apple-samsung-trial
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/3/3217057/day-two-testimony-apple-samsung-trial
I agree, seems like these internal emails may hurt Apple.
Things like this will harm Apple's case on being 'First':
Ouch!
Nice try. I don't remember your post saying "according to x source." Your post stated as a fact that Koh called aapl's motion "frivolous". If you were wrong in your post it's your error.
Gotta love Samsung's "Kubrick Defense"
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/02/judge-rules-out-samsungs-kubrick-did-the-ipad-before-apple-patent-defense/
They were serious too...
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/02/judge-rules-out-samsungs-kubrick-did-the-ipad-before-apple-patent-defense/
They were serious too...
You do understand what is being discussed here right ? Design. Be it a real world product or a movie prop, prior art is prior art.
Exactly, I admitted I posted something wrong. I just offered an explanation for those that cared. For what it's worth, my source was AppleInsider, and they since posted a correction to their initial posting as well.