|  | 
    | 
  
    | 
      |
 | Authored by: jkrise on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT |  | The more such Apple's media rubbish that comes to light, the better. The judge and Apple's reputations stand sullied by the goings-on in this case. Shame on
 them.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | Yes, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Thalaska on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT |  | Off Topic Here 
 Anyone caught on topic will be asked to compare and contrast all arguments in
 the SCO vs Everbody and the Apple vs Samsung for similarities and differences.
 Then sum them up in ASCII.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | Samsung 's  Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation"  for Sanctions, as text ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:40 AM EDT
As Apple’s products evolved, so did a strategy to protect them - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 10:47 AM EDT
Windows H8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 04:52 AM EDT
Windows H8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
Windows H8 - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:36 PM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro name - suggested name - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
Truth in advertising - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
I suggest "Disco"... - Authored by: betajet on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT
Windows AE (Apocalypse Edition) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Microsoft Dumps Metro from Windows 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT
How about MT ? - Authored by: Kilz on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
Android / iOS Metro Europe ap - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
So Google - you like maps? Have a few extra $$, some pull with givernments? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
Newspick: Corporate Overlords - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
Unsafe Gun Safes Can Be Opened By A Three-Year-Old - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Product placement vs. IP - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
"Dewey Defeats Truman"  - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:43 PM EDT
Effect on MegaUpload case? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Thalaska on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT |  | Comes here. [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: feldegast on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:42 AM EDT |  | So they can be fixed 
 ---
 IANAL
 My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
 Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
 P.J. has permission for commercial use.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | wish to with - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT
wish to with - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT
News picks - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 05:12 AM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:42 AM EDT |  | Reports are in that Apple's motion for sanctions has been denied.  Apparently the judge, however frazzled, has enough sanity left to realize that there is
 absolutely no way to justify sanctions here.
 
 That said, I wish this lawyer the best of luck in dealing with an angry judge.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | Not yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:11 AM EDT
Anger may be an act - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT |  | And the information Samsung was not allowed to add to the case has now been added to the case.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:58 AM EDT |  | "During his opening statement, Apple‘s counsel displayed a chart of a number of Samsung phones he claimed pre-dated the iPhone. This was Slide
 23:"
 
 Let me see if I get this straight. So, Apple is allowed to show pictures from a
 cherry picked timeline of Samsung phones, pre- and post-iPhone during their
 opening statement.
 
 But, Judge Koh wouldn't let Samsung show their version of what Samsung phones of
 the time looked like.
 
 This is so strange. One could possibly even call it a mystery.
 
 There must be something really really important I missed here.
 
 
 ---
 ______
 IMANAL
 
 
 .
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:47 AM EDT |  | Love the graphics PJ. Why am I not seeing this anywhere else?
 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | Trolls R'us..? (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT
Good show - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 07:50 AM EDT
Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
Good show - Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
Good show - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
Good show - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
Good show - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT |  | While Apple whales on them. 
 As you said, these proceedings are public, including your choice of rulings.
 
 Remember Judge Jackson?  There is a line.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Doghouse on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:49 AM EDT |  | Because each of the five factors favors dismissal, and in view of
the availability of lesser sanctions, it would be reversible error to grant the
relief Apple has "recommended." Translation: "There is no way
that we won't appeal this if you rule against us." Actually, I felt
whilst reading Samsung's filing that there was a continuing, albeit unstated,
thread running through it: that their side of the story of the F700 design would
have been a slam-dunk against Apple's case; that her refusal to let it be
admitted would definitely be coming up at any appeal; and that if she didn't
want the embarrassment of being reversed she'd better find a way to save face
and let it in. But that's perhaps just me. [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT |  | Not "trolling" ye great ijiit, "polling"!! 
 This piece reminded me of something I've been wondering about:
 
 Has anyone undertaken a survey of IP practitioners - litigators and others - to
 find out how many read Groklaw and how much it has influenced their practice and
 approach to IP?
 
 Lawyers are hired to advocate their client's position, not Do the Right Thing,
 so they're not suddenly going to see the light about software patents, et al,
 but I'm curious to find out how much influence we've gained as a place to get
 information and think accurately about the tech.
 
 I would *really* love to know how many judges involved in IP cases have added
 this site to their reading list, but I'm not sure there's an appropriate way to
 find out.
 
 Would anyone know how to go about doing that?
 
 
 
 ---
 If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
 it's worth.  If you try to make money by making money, you won't.  You might con
 so
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:09 AM EDT |  | I mean what is her excuse?  I haven't been able to find a reason why she won't
 let Samsung defend itself.
 
 Some commentators on Apple Insider are making strange claims that Samsung's
 evidence was brought forward too late, but I just read that Apple had this
 evidence in front of them at the beginning of February, 2012 and even used
 discovery to question Samsung's designer about them in that same month.  That's
 six months ago.  That's doesn't sound like an ambush and a reason to ban
 evidence to me.
 
 So that excuse doesn't hold water.  Does anyone know what Judge Koh's
 "reasoning" is (no matter how feeble) for disallowing Samsung to
 defend itself?
 
 Seriously,  I don't know.
 
 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Rubberman on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 09:06 AM EDT |  | "There is no end to litigation nonsense, I've concluded, in the US legal system. It is so depressing to watch."
 
 Depressing, yes. Also, very entertaining! I found the Groklaw
 coverage of Oracle vs. Google (and the world) to be quite
 riveting! I give you two thumbs up and kudos for performing a
 wonderful public service! Thanks, and keep up the great work!
 (not enough exclamation points here...). :-)
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: jcr6 on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |  | And of course Samsung has that (those?), too.
Any bets on how many YEARS this
case will continue on?  Both parties are 
well-capitalized.  Both parties will
appeal nearly everything they can.  It will 
probably hit the Supreme Court,
heck maybe even more than once.
Anyone think there will be a mistrial?
(This
is not a thread to predict the winner, merely the amount of TIME it will 
take
to get one. 
 (If there IS one.)
 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT |  | It is important to remember that when Apple moved to exclude the
F700 from evidence, Dkt. No. 1184-3, at 6, the Court denied Apple‘s motion,
ruling that all evidence as to the F700 was admissible, "including to rebut an
allegation of copying." Nonetheless, the Court later excluded all such evidence
from Samsung‘s opening statement.Ouch!  If that's
accurate1 that really raises the question of why the Court reversed
Course.  This seems like a very strong point for a successful
appeal. Additional images of the F700 and Samsung‘s related internal
models for that design were timely produced to Apple on February 3, 2012, and
Apple deposed the F700‘s principal designer, Hyoung Shin Park, on February 29,
2012. Over the course of her ten-hour deposition, Apple questioned Ms. Park at
length about the development of the F700 design, including the time period in
which F700 was developed, the nature of the project, the inspiration for the
phone designs, and the additional designs that were created during the project.
See Dkt. 1474. Apple‘s claim that the F700 copied Apple‘s patented designs
was consistent with the allegations of its original Complaint, where it
included the F700 as one of the accused products – although it later chose to
drop this claim (Dkt. No. 1178 at 2), undoubtedly recognizing it was
frivolous because the F700 predated the iPhone.Oh my!  If
accurate, it sounds like Apple dropped their claims against the F700, likely
didn't specify in pre-trial proceedings that they'd bring up the F700, then left
the F700 in their presentation.  What a way to get your Perry Mason
moment. And then the Judge followed up with preventing Samsung from
speaking about the F700... Double Ouch! Here's hoping that:
 A: If the
trail is accurateand B: The Judge realizes the connectionthat
she issues an appropriate order allowing Samsung to rebut Apple's F700
statements. 1:  At this point, I'm far more inclined to take Samsung's
representations at face value and less inclined to trust Apple's
representations.RAS [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |  | The sanctions were denied. 
 And Apple wanted to seal this mornings
 proceedings (jury not present).
 
 That request was denied also.
 
 Maybe Judge Koh has bought some
 vowels.
 
 
 ---
 
 You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT |  | According to the Los Angeles Times (via Google News), Apple's request has
been rejected, though the story isn't completely over yet. ---The
Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |  | I am beginning to think that part of the "problem" --- and the reason the judge was "livid" when Apple reported Samsung's press statement,
 is that basically judges have come to expect that people will basically tell
 them the truth.  After all, judges are very powerful.  They know that people
 will "spin" things, but they still expect that basically, at the core,
 they are told the truth.  Their job is to unwrap the "spin."
 
 The problem is that, increasingly in the US legal system, corporations are
 willing to commit wilful perjury to win their case, and they seem to have no
 problem finding attorneys willing to commit the perjury on their behalf.  We
 have seen so much blatant lying in the cases Groklaw follows, and the judges
 seem to be horribly gullible.
 
 The judges have not yet adapted to all the lies.  They are programmed to believe
 that each side tells a version of the truth, and when one side is willing to
 perjure themselves they can achieve a temporary advantage.  Until judges wise
 up, the lies and perjury will continue.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | The problem - Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |  | I keep tripping over this phrase, here on GL, and all over the tech press, usually referring to Apple's attempts to deny the
 admission of Samsung's historic designs. Now history is what
 I saw happening, and what you saw happening may well be
 different, even of the same event, because you saw it from a
 different angle with a different set of preconceptions.
 
 History is always being rewritten. There are libraries full of
 history books written by people who saw or heard things differently.
 Then with the passage of time more people will re-interpret
 that history in the light of a new set of moral principles.
 I hope the jury were taught enough of this basic philosophy
 to see that both parties are right, and both are wrong, and
 neither deserve a penny.
 
 The unfortunate part is that the court system works in a
 mysterious way that allows the parties to ration the quantity
 and quality of history that the jury is allowed to consider.
 
 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |  | Apple wanted to submit into evidence a DVD
that contained various Apple
commercials 
over the years.  A chart made it in, but
the objection to the DVD
was sustained. 
But, following the 'action' 
 here
it is both nauseating and rewarding reading the 'drama'
being
spewed by Apple.
 
The Reality Distortion Field is apparent, as both Schiller
and Forstall seem to be in sales pitch mode or something,
and seemingly act as
though the Apple tech is so great, and 
developing it was such 'hard
work'.
 
The rewarding part is that Apple is using up a lot of
their
time.
 
 ---
 You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  | "Samsung hurts sales" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
Reality check - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 12:43 AM EDT
Never - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 07:07 AM EDT
 |  |
 | Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT |  | Please include a link incase the item scrolls off the front page. 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |  | Samsung attorney John Quinn contributes 
 The
Register's Quote of the Week . There are more quotes and comments in El
Reg's unique style.
 
 
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT |  | Well, it seems to me Samsung may try to provoke a mistrial, since starting over would get their evidence into the record. On the other hand, extremists like
 Apple, Oracle and SCO have a habit of going too far with their tactics and
 cutting their own throats. From where I sit, it seems to me Koh is trying
 desperately to prevent a mistrial. So, the office pool is hereby under way:
 which side will cause the mistrial? Putting my money on Apple.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |
 | Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |  | F700 exclusion.  If it demonstrates development prior to iPhone, it doesn't seem fair to exclude it.
 [ Reply to This | # ]
 |  |  |  |  |  |