I don't see many Apple-haters posting in this thread, actually. Well, unless you consider anyone which happens to disagree with the sentence to be an "hater", which would be foolish. One can love Apple and their products but still find the sentence flawed.
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.
Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see many Apple-haters posting in this thread, actually. Well, unless you consider anyone which happens to disagree with the sentence to be an "hater", which would be foolish. One can love Apple and their products but still find the sentence flawed.
I pretty much agree with you - Apple's strongest weapon is the "preliminary injunction". Even if the courts throw out Apple's claims, Apple's managed to mess up the competition.
But couldn't Samsung in return counter sue them for damages?
----------
Or we are entertained by the irony of those with the last name of Booth.
So apparently in this world you can only have one phone by one company. One tv by one company. One burger by one company.
----------
:d
Actually, they get to claim the bond that Apple puts down in case the accused products are found to not be infringing. Of course, when the verdict lands, the OEM targetted by the injunction needs to submit a motion to lift the injunction... but when Samsung did just that (to lift the ban on the Galaxy tab that was found non-infringing for patent D'889) and asked the court to expedite ruling on the motion to lift it, Apple opposed it.
Wow. "Hey, your honor, we goofed, they were found non-infringing and our injunction wasn't warranted, but you know what ? Don't hurry in lifting it, no harm done really".
If after that farce of a motion you still think Apple isn't in it to slow down the competition, you've got blinders on.
But the Galaxy Tab was found infringing on the utility patents, hence why it would stay banned, no?
No, the injunction is based on the design patent, not the utility patents. Hence without a non-infringment verdict, it is free to be lifted.
Read the linked article. It's not that Apple opposes the actual lifting, they are opposing the motion to expedite the hearing on it. They know that as soon as the hearing takes place, the injunction will be lifted.
Ah, I see. It seems like the issue is this (if I am understanding correctly):
The Tab was banned due infringing D889 by Judge Koh. D889 was found invalid by the jury (or at least non-enforceable?), so the Tab can now be unbanned on that basis. However, the Tab was found to infringe the three utility patents, so Samsung would get the ban lifted and then Apple would have to wait until December to enforce the ban again.
I can understand Apple's position because it makes little sense to unban something and then reban the device. However, them's the breaks.
You're not, because you don't read the filings.
Apple is not asking to ban the Tab again :
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1940.pdf
The 8 devices Apple sought to gain preliminary injunction over in light of a permanent injunction in december are as follows :
You can understand Apple's position because again : You failed to read the filings. I'm not surprised, you always jump to Apple's defense and never bother with looking up the facts yourself. You need to be shown, each and every time, that reality does not align to your "beliefs".
So Apple just wants to keep the ban on the Tab for as long as possible, and would prefer it if the court didn't hear the motion to lift in the injunction until December. Of course, they argue "Hey, no harm done to Samsung, what's a mere 3 months ?". And you sit there and defend that position without even giving the filings a read through, inventing a whole scenario that has no basis in reality as justification for your position.
Disgusting.
I saw that, but I am not sure exactly how situations like this work. From the motion Apple filed it sounded like the fact that the Tab was found infringing of the three utility patents was reason enough that Apple was likely to try banning it again. I have no idea if that was their plan but here's the breakdown by GrokLaw:
GrokLaw said:
Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought it was reading as, "It doesn't violate the D'889 patent, but it does violate our utility patents so we may take action based on that." I could be 100% wrong, hence why I framed my post in "(in my understanding)."
Uh, okay? I don't know what to tell you. I am here to learn and I have never once said I'm always right and everyone else is wrong. I definitely don't think everything Apple does it right, but in this case I understand the logic: why allow something to be unbanned just to reban it (if that was the situation).
If Apple has no intentions to seek an injunction based on it infringing the utility patents then it's just silliness, however, I can't imagine that they wouldn't try and block it if they could. However, it's all software so I assume that Samsung could easily push out a software update to remove any offending software portions, no?
Uh, I just explained what I thought was going on. I don't know why you have to try so hard to condescend and be extremely rude. I try to be nice and not force my opinion on anyone else. Why do you feel the need to be rude?
Because you always play devil's advocate in favor of Apple. It's getting tiring.
I'm fairly certain I can do whatever I want in my posting, as long as I don't insult people, which I don't.
I mean, it's not just me. Most of the people who've interacted with you would agree that you are unnecessarily condescending, rude and aggressive. This is not just me that thinks this.
However, I don't think that I do play devil's advocate as much as I see it from a different perspective. If the situation is as I laid it out (I am not saying it is, but I read it that way) then the move makes sense. I don't know why that has to offend you, but it's a bit ridiculous to get so upset because someone has a different perspective than you.
I also don't think Apple does everything right. I certainly wish Apple would wisen up and implement a larger screen than a 16:9ish 4" panel, but alas it is not going to happen. I don't agree with Apple going after HTC, especially because HTC clearly has differentiated themselves from the iPhone.
EDIT: Regardless, isn't it all lawyering anyways?
EDIT x2: Also, disagree banning the Tab on such a generic design patent, disagree with the generic iPhone design patent as well in any case where a company wasn't purposely imitating the iPhone.
Last edited:
No, it's just that you always adopt the contrarian position to me that is annoying, not that you have a different perspective than me. It's the "always" part.
That's ridiculous. I can't help that I am on the opposite side of the fence than you sometimes.
The funny thing is that I've upvoted posts of yours that I agreed with.
On the same token, there are a select few users who are very active about taking the contrarian position to Apple in general.
Since it's usually the same people taking the contrarian position and the same people who are willing to spend energy and time taking the contrarian-contrarian position, it probably can't be helped that you see the same people all the time taking the stance against you On the same token, there are a select few users who are very active about taking the contrarian position to Apple in general.
So Whos on first??
On the same token, there are a select few users who are very active about taking the contrarian position to Apple in general.
Who are you talking about ? Don't be afraid to drop names if you're going to make accusations. That's also annoying, innuendo.
The evidence used in murder cases is, quite often, *more* technical than what is presented in a patent case. DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, blood-splatter analysis, etc. All of these are highly technical processes, which (despite how it is shown on TV) have their own common failure conditions, and error rates.
If you think patents are tricky, try explaining to a typical jury that a DNA match with 99.99% confidence *doesn't* mean that you've only got a .01% chance of having the wrong guy. (It actually means that there are about 25,000 people, just in New York City, who match the DNA that well.)
Here. Let me repeat that quote for you, with a bit of emphasis. You seem to have stopped reading it part way through the sentence.
Teaching someone enough about the *patented technology* and the accused technology to make an informed decision has *nothing* to do with teaching someone how to run a business, or making sure they have an MBA.
Yes, I do know the law. The law is *why* we have juries.
You wanted expert engineers and the like to judge patent cases. The engineers and such are the people who create patented technologies. The corresponding individuals in murder cases are the people who create murders (ie: murderers).
The police officers would be equivalent to the people who *investigate* patents (ie: the folks at the USPTO). They already have a place in this process.
As for judges, they have the same role in the process *now* as they would in your revised process (based on your own descriptions).
Ok, so a trial based on US laws *can't* be a fair trial because it has a jury made up of US citizens? Who *should* we have on the jury? Should we grab people from France? Germany? Japan? China? India? Where?
Also, please provide supporting evidence for your "the judge is just a puppet" claim. It really speaks to your bias (or trolldom) that you think this.
As I saw in the youTube clip, an educated person made a convincing argument to the jury, and they agreed. As I see here, you disagree with their conclusion (despite not having actually seen all of the evidence), so you assume that he was wrong, and they were stupid (despite not having been present during deliberations).
Are you contending that Samsung couldn't afford a good lawyer? That's obviously not the case here, so instead you've resorted to claiming the judge was a 'puppet' (despite all the rulings which went against Apple along the way).
Is it a perfect system? No. Do innocent people sit in jail *despite* being innocent? Unfortunately, yes. Show me a system where that *doesn't* happen, and I'll be thrilled to help you get it put into place. Unfortunately, our system actually has one of the *best* rates of *not* turning up false positives. In fact, our system lets off more criminals due to technicalities designed to *stop* those false positives than it actually puts in prison. (And this is *often* complained about both on TV, and in the news.)
Of course, being a *civil* trial, there was no danger of *anyone* being put in prison as a result.
----------
Do we agree that the Small Form Factor concept isn't Apple's to begin with ? Even if you want to argue that the Power Mac G4 Cube was theoretically the first one, on the PC side, it's actually the Shuttle SV24 that launched the trend of SFF, spawning the whole Mini/Nano/Pico ITX form factor motherboards and cases and the OEM flavors of such small PCs.
The Shuttle SV24 had the added benefit of being made of aluminum rather than polycarbonate and as such didn't have the bad habit of cracking like the G4 Cube had.
Strange thing... The Cube actually *didn't* have a bad habit of cracking (though it did in some instances). Instead, it had a habit of having the mold-lines become visible when the area was subjected to more stress than 'normal'. (This was easy to do when re-tightening a screw after opening up the Cube.) In the vast majority of the reported 'cracks' in the Cube's casing, you couldn't get dyes to enter the so-called 'crack'. That means there was no fracture on the surface (which is the definition of a crack). Indeed, even if you sliced off a cross-section where the so-called 'crack' was, you couldn't get dyes to enter there either in most instances.
Really? Two million dollars for a company with one hundred billion in liquid assets? Is this a matter of pride or are they that frugal?
----------
The evidence is more technical but the law is not.
That to show again
How bad is the jury system
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...apple_trial_on_claims_of_jury_misconduct.html
How bad is the jury system
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...apple_trial_on_claims_of_jury_misconduct.html
I don't think that link shows what you think it shows. Accusations are not evidence.
It turns out...
there might have been another rationale for foreman's decision making. Seagate Technology Inc. sued Velvin Hogan for breach of contract two decades ago. Currently Samsung is Seagate's top direct shareholder with over 11% of all outstanding common shares. This creates a conflict of interest which Hogan failed to disclose. And now Samsung is using this as a ground for a retrial.
Link
there might have been another rationale for foreman's decision making. Seagate Technology Inc. sued Velvin Hogan for breach of contract two decades ago. Currently Samsung is Seagate's top direct shareholder with over 11% of all outstanding common shares. This creates a conflict of interest which Hogan failed to disclose. And now Samsung is using this as a ground for a retrial.
Link
Court filings and analysis :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770
Samsung are going for retrial based on the undisclosed action in Seagate v. Hogan and on the fact that he brought extraneous evidence into deliberations (based on his constant media interviews when he was revealing they broke Judge instructions).
Oh and while we're at it, the Judge finally dissolved the Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121001235607439
Judge should award a dollar to Apple and call it even. With so much bad blood between Apple and Samsung, this relationship is over. Apple can find new suppliers and Samsung can concentrate on their own products. Just like any other high volume contract, suppliers cannot make much profit, just hype.