I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate. Do you think she's going to hand Samsung the victory because Samsung is a Korean company?
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
I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate. Do you think she's going to hand Samsung the victory because Samsung is a Korean company?
What's interesting about that ? She's pretty much shown she's quite impartial in this whole thing.
Apple definitely doesn't steal, but I'm also reluctant to say they innovate.
They make physically appealing products, but that's about it.
She's already shown her distrust, and disgust with both sides on this case.
Often times, when reading opinion at an Android forum everyone says she is an Apple fanboi.
However, when you read here, people say she is Samsung friendly.
Who the hell knows anymore.
What we do know is that entire trial is a joke, not only from the perspective of poor execution by both sets of lawyers, but also on it's merits as well.
Apple stole, Android stole, Samsung stole... guess what, HTC stole, Microsoft stole, Asus stole, Dell stole, Xerox stole, Gateway stole, RIM stole, Motorola stole... on and motherf'ing on.
The reason cell phones are rectangular is because we hold them in our hands. Period.
The reason icons are large and square is because we poke them with our fingers. Period.
The reason you have to swipe to unlock is so that you don't accidentally interface with the phone and dial someone you didn't intend to. Period.
The reason there is a touch driven interface when your phone rings is because you're obligated to do something when another person calls you. Period.
...etc, etc, etc.
What a waste of time, tax money, and most importantly, innovation.
Often times, when reading opinion at an Android forum everyone says she is an Apple fanboi.
However, when you read here, people say she is Samsung friendly.
Who the hell knows anymore.
What we do know is that entire trial is a joke, not only from the perspective of poor execution by both sets of lawyers, but also on it's merits as well.
Apple stole, Android stole, Samsung stole... guess what, HTC stole, Microsoft stole, Asus stole, Dell stole, Xerox stole, Gateway stole, RIM stole, Motorola stole... on and motherf'ing on.
The reason cell phones are rectangular is because we hold them in our hands. Period.
The reason icons are large and square is because we poke them with our fingers. Period.
The reason you have to swipe to unlock is so that you don't accidentally interface with the phone and dial someone you didn't intend to. Period.
The reason there is a touch driven interface when your phone rings is because you're obligated to do something when another person calls you. Period.
...etc, etc, etc.
What a waste of time, tax money, and most importantly, innovation.
I'd say that's proof positive she's fairly unbiased. If all the cheerleaders hate her, she's probably doing something right.
and if she could go back in time, she probably would have pulled a Posner: tell both parties to stop wasting her time and dismiss the case with prejudice.
Agreed, unless of course it's all a big show to make it appear as if she's undeterred by her own personal opinions, all while steering the jury to a favorable outcome.
...or at least, thats what will be claimed by the losing side when this case is over.
Agreed, unless of course it's all a big show to make it appear as if she's undeterred by her own personal opinions, all while steering the jury to a favorable outcome.
...or at least, thats what will be claimed by the losing side when this case is over.
highly doubt either side will allow the case to get past deliberations.
Actually, both sides have pretty much set up a lot of ground for appeal, so no matter the outcome, Judge Koh pretty much knows at this point it's out of her hands.
Now hold a cotton-pickin' minute! Now if Apple wins, it's because "she was given bags of money".
No wonder she is tired. She's been reading fanboy forums. She's gonna finish the case by saying, "f** it, I'm tired. I'M GOING HOME!". And leave Sammy and Apple to figure it out.
sure they would get an outcome, but both sides will probably get a couple of their patents invalidated in the process and I doubt either side wants that.
It's old news. If the judge was a Caucasian male with an interest in Buddhism, would that be any more relevant?
Your comments are so silly
.It's likely that Apple has the most to lose in terms of patents. Theirs are often somewhat general/generic for patents, like they make them only as specific as absolutely necessary to get them approved. The risk there is that it widens the pool of prior art that can be used against them.
Koh (to Apple Lawyers) "unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!".
Apple attorney William Lee then says, "First, your honor, I'm not smoking crack. I can promise you that!".
Rolf, she's my new favorite judge!
Apple attorney William Lee then says, "First, your honor, I'm not smoking crack. I can promise you that!".
Rolf, she's my new favorite judge!
Koh (to Apple Lawyers) "unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!".
Apple attorney William Lee then says, "First, your honor, I'm not smoking crack. I can promise you that!".
Rolf, she's my new favorite judge!
well she was calling Apple on their crap. The only reason they turned in such a huge list was to snow ball Samsung and make it harder for them to prepare for the cross. Apple fights pretty dirty.
That God Koh seems to be pretty unbiased. Being on several Android forums I was beginning to think she was pro-Apple. She's not taking any crap this week. Must be that time of the month.
"I'm billing time because you all are being unreasonable [To Apple and Samsung]". It's like she's being a parent here.
Judge To Apple "You Smoking Crack?"
Another day, more excitement as reported by Tech Crunch & Ars Technica...
"The best part of the entire Apple-Samsung patent war has been Federal Judge Lucy Koh. Shes a smaller woman with straight, silk black hair, but she manages to make some of the wealthiest lawyers and highest level executives bow down.
Shes an Alpha, and not without a touch of humor, either.
In fact, today she asked Apples attorney if he was smoking crack. "
What a festive event
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/16/th...y-koh-accuses-apples-lawyer-of-smoking-crack/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-wits-end-asks-if-lawyers-are-smoking-crack/
Another day, more excitement as reported by Tech Crunch & Ars Technica...
"The best part of the entire Apple-Samsung patent war has been Federal Judge Lucy Koh. Shes a smaller woman with straight, silk black hair, but she manages to make some of the wealthiest lawyers and highest level executives bow down.
Shes an Alpha, and not without a touch of humor, either.
In fact, today she asked Apples attorney if he was smoking crack. "
What a festive event
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/16/th...y-koh-accuses-apples-lawyer-of-smoking-crack/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-wits-end-asks-if-lawyers-are-smoking-crack/
I dont know that they innovate either. What I do know is that Steve Jobs wasn't saying that Apple steals ideas from others. Everytime someone posts that quote as some sort of indicator that Apple are thieves, it makes you realize just how stupid those people are.
Everytime someone posts about "theft" or "thieves" in relation to IP (trademark/patents/copyright), it makes you realize just how stupid those people are. It's infringement, not theft.
Also, everytime someone posts about "copying" in relation to patents, it makes you realize just how stupid those people are. Patents are not "copied", most infringement is based on ignorance of the patent.
Ask Apple about Visual Voice Mail...
I think you can be a little more forgiving for ppl who don't understand patent law and what entails infringement then when ppl refuse to read a few extra words and take a quote out of context.
No one here is in a position to decide if Samsung copied, was ignorant and/or infringed because we're not at the trial and we're not in the jury, nor does anyone here know patent law (although we have plenty of armchair patent lawyers here).
Everyone here is capable of reading a quote fully instead of pulling bits and pieces out of context and then play it as some sort of trump card. That's stupidity.
After you've explained it to them multiple times and they still persist in their ignorant rethoric, they are a little beyond forgiveness. You registered here a month ago, you'll learn. Of course, you've been trying hard to act like you know the forum better than some regulars...
Again, talking about patents, it is ignorant to talk about copying, since infringement is not on the basis of copying at all.
And you don't need to be a lawyer to understand how patents work, what they protect, what criteria they need to respect in order to be granted or valid.
The irony is that it seems not everyone understands why people post that quote. There is a deeper meaning there, beyond "stealing" and "copying". It's about building on the shoulders of giants and guess what, Apple did that (hence the quote in context and what it means) and others can very well also do that.
Apple has no right to try and take all the toys in the sandbox for itself. A lot of the patents Apple and others has put forth are getting challenged and invalidated, there's a reason for that and it goes back to people needing to understand what patents are, what they protect and what they have come to mean and stand for in the last 2 decades.
There is a far larger movement that is against software patents.
Take the time to learn about this forum, its culture and the discussions we've had before you try to pretend to teach us what is going on around here.
Going to have to say that, for the most part I agree that the appealing products , but Apple definitely performs the same "stealing" as others.
I just watched a vid on youtube, was taken many many years ago and was about the GUI.
Steve jobs talks about how he was invited in the late 70's, early 80's by Xerox to come visit the PARC alto location. YOu know, the place where the WIMP GUI was invented the first time, as well as many of the technologies that would find their ways into our computing lives.
Steve Jobs in his own words explained how he was floored by the GUI. He states how he was so amazzed by it he absolutely missed seeing (and he lists about 5 or 6 technologies Xerox had in development, that funny, Apple later released too), and that he thought the GUI was going to be the biggest fundamental shift in computing, and that he was determined to make it his. Soon after, Apple released a computer featuring a GUI interface which subscribes to the WIMP ideal that some argued looked nearly identical to XEROX PARC.
Funny, then when Microsoft releases Windows shortly after, Apple goes in a huff, claims Microsoft is stealing and went on a lengthy sue battle against Microsoft that almost ended with Apples Bankruptcy in the 90's. in the end, Apple was saved from their own greed by Microsoft's bail-out.
Is Apple so determined that everyone else stole everything from them, that they're willing to completely risk invalidating their portfolio of patents by throwing them all at everyone? Can apple honestly believe that they are right? Could this lawsuit with no end possibly direct Apple to the same fate as their previous misadventure with Microsoft have?
This shall be interesting.
Last edited:
The shape of the NewsPad shown in the film is not the same as that of D889 at all.
It certainly is in this case.
Yes, but also don't forget that the U.S. Appeal's Court found that "substantial differences in the overall visual appearance" exist between D889 and the 1994 Fidler concept and stated that it didn't invalidate D889.
Indeed, when you look at the Fidler concept and D889, the differences are substantial, though less so than between the 2001 NewsPad and D889.
We were discussing whether what was in 2001 was a personal tablet computer like Samsung asserted in their submission, or whether it was something else entirely. Not the reason/s why it was or wasn't allowed as evidence.