|
Authored by: Tkilgore on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
This is the canonical thread.
Note the previous correction by anonymous:
aggregious -> egregious[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
Apple during it's close to the jury, was sticking the judge's ruling on
"prior art" down their...
throats.
... and, at the same time, almost making a mokery of the judge's ruling (and
hopefully, the judge, at that point in time, fully understood the act that was
being played out, and, that there was a mistake in not allowing Samsung their
full due in court (by not allowing Samsung to present a fact of the matter in
their defense).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Civil trials should be about finding out the truth and providing justice. It's
not a game or something where you get disqualified on a technicality. If Samsung
is allowed to show this evidence it will bring us closer to the truth .. not
further .. therefore it should be allowed. "But then Apple wont have time
to refute it" .. uh then give Apple the time to refute it --if it's even
needed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: alanjshea on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Exactly - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Exactly - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- As I recall it - - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- As I recall it - - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: micheas on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT
- Agreed. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- That would be much too cheap! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: paf077 on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Technicalities are there for good reasons - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- Let them present it - Authored by: nola on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Gotta see this:
Joy of Tech Verdict-O-Matic
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
One has to ask the bleeding obvious - how much of the one sided decisions is
due to Apple being the home team and Samsung being foreign.
Can any
foreign companies ever expect to get fair treatment under the US judicial
system? --- The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a
man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
... cannot now claim that it is prejudiced by having the same
standard applied to itself.
We saw such tactics out of SCOg as well
- to paraphrase Judge Wells:
SCOg can not now claim specific files and lines
are not required when that is what they demanded out of IBM!
It's too bad
Judge Wells didn't catch on sooner before IBM had to produce a server with the
entire history of AIX.
This situation leaves me wondering how much Judge
Koh might be unreasonably upset with Samsung.
What I mean is:
A:
Let's suppose that Apple has been quite vociferous in it's filings.
B:
Let's suppose Samsung has always ever really only responded in defense against
said filings.
After all... isn't a filing undefended/unresponded to likely
to default in the favor of the filer? As a result, a response must - by
reasonable, fair default - be expected and allowed.
C: Let's suppose one
final thing: that Samsun only ever went on the offensive in situations such as
this where what appears to be an unfair ruling was applied to them and they were
simply trying to balance things out.
Now... with all that supposition in
mind: should Judge Koh have any grounds to be upset at the number of filings
done by Samsung when they were only ever responding to Apple's litigation
tactics?
It'd be interesting to find out just how much of Judge Koh's
irritation that is/was directed at Samsung was out of misunderstanding that
Samsung was simply attempting to defend themselves.... as would be required by
Law in order not to have a default Judgement against them applied.
We're
likely to never know the truth behind either that or the suppositions supplied
above.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Certainly they are only human, but given their position, I'm going to hold them
to a higher standard than the average person. When I see judges like Gross
seemingly simply rubber stamping anything which crosses his desk, I'm also going
to need more evidence of his competence before I show him any respect. People,
even judges, must earn respect. It doesn't come automatically with the job
title.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
>> In the appeal, if there is one, look for all that. [The evidence
Samsung was not allowed to present.] <<
Well, yes. Indeed, as noted in some of the coverage, at one point, Judge Koh
testily told the lawyers for one side, or the other, or both, that they could
relax, they'd already done everything they needed to to preserve the issues in
question for appeal. I think there's some reason to believe that Judge Koh was
doing what was needed to move this case to conclusion, being pretty sure that
this was only round one of what was very likely to be several rounds, and the
outcome here matters only a little in that the loser is sure to appeal, and I
suppose she thinks it likely to be remanded for re-trial.
The Flatlander
It's been hard to avoid believing that Judge Koh was stung by the earlier
interlocutory appeal, and that since then she's just been going through the
motions, as it were.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
Judge Koh, and her magistrate have by default ruled against
Samsung in anyway they could. This case has absolutely
<b>ZERO</b> to do with fairness. Judge Koh, had to be
slapped upside the head with the fairness of the issue
before she would rule for Samsung. It shouldn't be that
hard to get a fair ruling from a judge. There seems to be
clear bias here.
If Apple wins I do not see anyway that Samsung will not
appeal, and hopefully win there. Maybe, Judge Koh, was just
giving too much deference to her magistrate judge, who
clearly didn't care one wit about fairness. But, that isn't
an excuse for how Samsung has been treated by her court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
No Off Topic comments on fairness, adverse relationships,
judges, law, courtrooms, Apple fans, telecom, cell phones,
evidence or Pooh Bear. Only because the magistrate might be a
Pooh Bear.
On topic posts will be punished by making you weigh nits.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
URLs, please. They scroll off so fast.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
Transcripts of files from the Comes v. MS trial. See link
above.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
Apple has spent this trial trying to convince the jury that it is difficult for
a consumer to tell the difference between an iPhone and an Android Phone. Why
didn't they bring in iPhones and Samsung phones (as configured by the shops) and
let the jury have a play with them!
What a load of
<censored>insert suitable swear word here</censored>!
As it
happens I am about to replace my aging HTC Hero with a more modern
smart phone. I did have a LOOK at one of the current Apple iPhones - shuddered - and
moved on to the Android phones. After Apple's recent set of unnecessary attacks
on Samsung I will almost certainly buy a Samsung phone (such as the S2) to spite Apple
and because it is a better product. It looks NOTHING like the iPhone and does
not behave anything like an iPhone. There were plenty of other customers in the
shop who were non-techies but clued up and knew exactly what the differences
were.
This trial should be view as exactly what it is - Apple trying to
stop other companies competing with it through the flawed and (currently)
ridiculous USA patent system (granting 1000's of totally obvious ideas with lots
of prior art to existing USA companies) who then use these patents to (try to)
stifle innovation - or more importantly competition. Even worse - trade
'agreements' forced on other countries (such as ACTA and worse) effectively
extend USA law abroad thus disenfranchising foreign citizens such as myself -
who are unable to vote out the US congressmen who vote for these unfair pieces
of legislation!
Apple produce beautiful overpriced pieces of hardware
which some like and many don't (such as branded jeans like 'Levi'). Samsung and
other companies who produce hardware that can run Android produce not quite so
pretty but very functional, workhorse and great value-for-money products that
can more than compete with Apple products on their core turf.
Well done
Apple! By your stupid (and undoubtedly anti-competitive) legal actions you have
alienated many potential customers. I for one will never be buying another
Apple product.
--- Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced
software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like
Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
Keep in mind that there is no specific math for when you are
supposed to figure out that litigation is likely. That is the trigger, when a
reasonable party would figure that out. But if Samsung was supposed to know that
date was the date, and if Apple itself was pointing to that date as the right
one, what about Apple? Why didn't it start saving emails back then
too?
That is a very telling question. Why is Apple screaming
loudly what Samsumg might have done when keeping very quiet over what it has
done to a worse degree?
As Samsung was Sanctioned by the magistrate and it
has been reported (on Groklaw at least), then the only fair solution would have
been for Apple to also have been sanctioned to a greater degree as they
failed to keep the evidence (1) until must after Samsung and (2) they were the
plaintiff and would know when the legal action would take place.
Or is it
unfair in that in so sanctioning Apple, it would then put the question in to the
mind of the jurors that if Apple screamed loudly about Samsung not keeping
evidence and got them sanctioned for it when they themselves were guilty of not
keeping evidence to a greater degree, then this whole case is about Apple
screaming loudly that Samsung have copied them but could Apple in fact have been
doing copying themselves to a greater degree? And so push the jury much more
towards a not guilty verdict?
The Sanctions would be provided as evidence by
the court of wilful(?) negligence(?) by both sides, but the earlier date of
Apple's sanction request (and grant) related to its later keeping of [potential]
evidence smacks of something not right in the Apple camp - too much like a
Magician and the diversionary things done to keep you from seeing exactly what
he's doing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
"Did it pay off, trying to find fault with Samsung on this issue? I think
not. Not in the courtroom. But what about in the media? Did you see a lot of
articles about Samsung being too late, complaining out of dramatics instead of
substance, etc.? I did too."
The court of law is what matters not the media. Finish your thought PJ. What
exactly are you saying? Who cares what the media says or are you saying the
media will influence the judge and jury in the court room?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|