Apple unlikely to get Samsung device injunction from US court

124

Comments

  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    ... 2. (in the part you quoted): EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, it is not clear that Apple would be irreparably harmed. ...



    That's not what the part quoted says. It says an injunction would not prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed, then, it goes on to say that an injunction would benefit others, which seems irrelevant. Maybe she just can't write clearly, but that's not really a good quality in a federal judge, and not writing clearly often indicates an inability to think clearly.



    I'm left with the impression that she doesn't really know what she's doing, and the fact that someone needs to "explain what she meant" isn't really reassuring.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    That's not what the part quoted says. It says an injunction would not prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed, then, it goes on to say that an injunction would benefit others, which seems irrelevant. Maybe she just can't write clearly, but that's not really a good quality in a federal judge, and not writing clearly often indicates an inability to think clearly.



    I'm left with the impression that she doesn't really know what she's doing, and the fact that someone needs to "explain what she meant" isn't really reassuring.



    That's what happens when you take one quote out of context and don't understand the way legal discussions are handled. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what she wrote or how she wrote it.



    As I showed above, she stated that Apple had failed to show any damages. Since the appeals court addressed that topic directly (and concurred with the trial judge), that was an important part of the decision.



    Legal arguments often have a cascade of arguments. They will say something like:

    1. We believe xyz.

    2. Even if xyz is false, we believe we should win because of abc.

    3. Even if argument 2 fails, we believe we should win because of lmn.

    4. And so on



    It is very common for a legal argument to do what Judge Koh did. Her decision stated that Apple had failed to show damages. Then she further stated that EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, that there would not be irreparable harm (because Samsung could afford to pay any potential damages - see the arguments above). She then further stated that if she granted an injunction, it would be the competitors who benefited, not Apple (which is a completely non-sequitor argument and is really more of a throw-away that doesn't affect the decision).
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That's what happens when you take one quote out of context and don't understand the way legal discussions are handled. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what she wrote or how she wrote it.



    As I showed above, she stated that Apple had failed to show any damages. Since the appeals court addressed that topic directly (and concurred with the trial judge), that was an important part of the decision.



    Legal arguments often have a cascade of arguments. They will say something like:

    1. We believe xyz.

    2. Even if xyz is false, we believe we should win because of abc.

    3. Even if argument 2 fails, we believe we should win because of lmn.

    4. And so on



    It is very common for a legal argument to do what Judge Koh did. Her decision stated that Apple had failed to show damages. Then she further stated that EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, that there would not be irreparable harm (because Samsung could afford to pay any potential damages - see the arguments above). She then further stated that if she granted an injunction, it would be the competitors who benefited, not Apple (which is a completely non-sequitor argument and is really more of a throw-away that doesn't affect the decision).



    That still isn't what the sentence she wrote says, there was no "even" and that isn't at all what the sentence implies. And, if the writing of a federal judge requires that much explanation to spin it to "what she really meant", said judge needs to take remedial writing classes. I find it very disturbing that a federal judge would write in such a sloppy manner.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    That still isn't what the sentence she wrote says, there was no "even" and that isn't at all what the sentence implies. And, if the writing of a federal judge requires that much explanation to spin it to "what she really meant", said judge needs to take remedial writing classes. I find it very disturbing that a federal judge would write in such a sloppy manner.



    I find it even more disturbing that you're attacking a respected judge on the basis of a single sentence that you've taken out of context.



    Get a law school degree so you understand how legal documents are written, then read the ENTIRE decree (not just one or two sentences cited by a blogger) and see if it makes sense.



    The appeals court obviously thought it made sense since they affirmed it.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I find it even more disturbing that you're attacking a respected judge on the basis of a single sentence that you've taken out of context.



    Get a law school degree so you understand how legal documents are written, then read the ENTIRE decree (not just one or two sentences cited by a blogger) and see if it makes sense.



    The appeals court obviously thought it made sense since they affirmed it.



    One doesn't need a law degree to recognize poorly written English. Maybe the appeals court didn't understand what they were reading either.
  • sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member
    Fanboy battles throughout the ages



    Nintendo Vs Sega....about the GAMES

    Mac Vs PC.....about the OS

    WRX Vs Evo......about the CARS





    iphone Vs Galaxy....about the LAWSUITS





    my my, how times have changed for the worse
  • relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


    I own both a Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 and an iPad2. The power connector and charger are exact replicas of Apples. The smRt cover they have is also very, very similar. There is no question in my mind where Samsung got their ideas.



    Oh your talking about the PDMI standard that was created by the CEA. Nothing to do with Samsung other then they licensed the port connector. A port connector now used by pretty much everyone now. Oh and Apple bought out then hired the guy who invented the 30 pin connector for their first generation iPods. Yes, yes everyone copys Apple please excuse me.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    One doesn't need a law degree to recognize poorly written English. Maybe the appeals court didn't understand what they were reading either.



    Yes, I'm sure that your reading of one sentence is far more valid than an experience judge's reading of the entire opinion.
  • relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    One doesn't need a law degree to recognize poorly written English. Maybe the appeals court didn't understand what they were reading either.



    They understood perfectly, it was a waste of time and money. I'm happy to see these lawsuits thrown out, next step Motorolas lawsuit against Apple. I hope that falls just as flat as this one, enough is enough. Keep it up judges, these corporations need to handle these problems themselves.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Yes, I'm sure that your reading of one sentence is far more valid than an experience judge's reading of the entire opinion.



    Well, that sentence doesn't say what you keep saying it does, so there's no reason I would accept your interpretation of the opinion. However, I doubt very much that the appeals court based their decision on a single sentence, and it seems at odds with the opinion as a whole. But one really does have to wonder about our legal process and the people in charge of it when you see that sort of sloppy writing -- and one's writing mirrors one's thought -- along with the introduction of entirely irrelevant topics -- more muddled thought -- in even one sentence of an opinion issued by a federal judge. As a citizen, it concerns me, and it ought to concern everyone.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, that sentence doesn't say what you keep saying it does, so there's no reason I would accept your interpretation of the opinion. However, I doubt very much that the appeals court based their decision on a single sentence, and it seems at odds with the opinion as a whole. But one really does have to wonder about our legal process and the people in charge of it when you see that sort of sloppy writing -- and one's writing mirrors one's thought -- along with the introduction of entirely irrelevant topics -- more muddled thought -- in even one sentence of an opinion issued by a federal judge. As a citizen, it concerns me, and it ought to concern everyone.



    Yes, I'm sure that you know more about it than the judge and the appeals judge.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Yes, I'm sure that you know more about it than the judge and the appeals judge.



    You can engage in schoolyard taunts, but you're still wrong about what that sentence said.
  • galeforcegaleforce Posts: 67member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post


    Oh your talking about the PDMI standard that was created by the CEA. Nothing to do with Samsung other then they licensed the port connector. A port connector now used by pretty much everyone now. Oh and Apple bought out then hired the guy who invented the 30 pin connector for their first generation iPods. Yes, yes everyone copys Apple please excuse me.



    Except it isn't a PDMI connector. It is Samsung's own proprietary connector based on the PDMI standard. Just like Apple.
  • galeforcegaleforce Posts: 67member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Some stuff



    Android circa 2005 (it is an emulated/rendered device as no device existed at that time but the OS looked like that)





    Apple Newton MessagePad (2003)



  • hmmhmm Posts: 3,367member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galeforce View Post


    Android circa 2005 (it is an emulated/rendered device as no device existed at that time but the OS looked like that)



    The newton came out well before then. Palm and Handspring (eventually taken over by Palm) had UI elements that were similar. Those came out in 1997 for Palm. Handspring was 1997 or 1998.















    Keep in mind that the original scrapped iphone concept was also something based on a Motorola design. I'm not trying to devalue Apple's accomplishments. They used their success with the ipods and the comeback seen in the Mac line to fund IOS development and the iphone. The combination of acquisitions and in house development was obviously intense. I just think people need to lay off the kool-aid a bit, especially in terms of grumbling over why an injunction wasn't granted.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    ... Keep in mind that the original scrapped iphone concept was also something based on a Motorola design. I'm not trying to devalue Apple's accomplishments. They used their success with the ipods and the comeback seen in the Mac line to fund IOS development and the iphone. The combination of acquisitions and in house development was obviously intense. I just think people need to lay off the kool-aid a bit, especially in terms of grumbling over why an injunction wasn't granted.



    First, you can only be thinking of this, which owes something to the iPod



    http://direct.motorola.com/hellomoto/rokr/



    but, no, there is none of the ROKR's DNA in the iPhone.



    As for your other points, well, you don't have any that are actually relevant to your koolaid comment, but the bit about how Apple's other successes funded iPhone development seems particularly bizarre in this context. I don't think we're the ones who need to lay off something.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    You can engage in schoolyard taunts, but you're still wrong about what that sentence said.



    In the opinion of someone who thinks he knows more about it than the trial judge and the appeals court.



    Sorry, but your opinion isn't something that I care about.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    In the opinion of someone who thinks he knows more about it than the trial judge and the appeals court.



    Sorry, but your opinion isn't something that I care about.



    Apparently you don't care about the rules of English syntax and semantics, either.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Apparently you don't care about the rules of English syntax and semantics, either.



    Your lack of a rational, intelligent argument is noted.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Your lack of a rational, intelligent argument is noted.



    I reread the posts, just to make sure I wasn't imagining things, but, no, I wasn't the one without an argument. Let's recap: I said, "That sentence doesn't say what you are claiming it does, it actually says ...". You replied, over and over, "Yes it does."
Sign In or Register to comment.