ITC judge invokes 'Cheech and Chong' test in Apple-Samsung case - Page 3

 

You must not know moderating, then. Sometimes you have to have a public banning so people understand that someone actually was banned. He could have wiped out the whole sequence. He might after the fact. But it goes with the territory.

 

Moderating is not easy. It's even harder when you're invested in the forum the way TS is because it's a lot like parenting. As a moderator your "kids" (read: regular members) are not going to be okay with everything you say or do but they have to listen to you and respect your authority. You're in charge. Since you see so much regular activity from TS when he has to put his foot down it looks like someone overstepping his bounds to some people. I'd rather take that over a no-show moderator that doesn't really post much but swoops in and tries to discipline people. That'd be like a dead-beat dad coming home after 10 years telling you to clean your room.

 

I have no problem with how TS posts or moderates. He's more blunt then others but he has his personality and you have yours. If his "superiors" don't have a problem with his moderating then he must be doing what he's supposed to do.

Actually Google designed that little gem, Samsung was just chosen as the manufacturer. Similar to the Nexus project. Mini ITX board designers used to use OEM boxes smilier to this, I had one that looked pretty close to the Apple Mini a year before Apple came out with it.

No one said that Apple invented either USB or multipin connectors.

Nice straw man argument, though.

Uh huh. Notice that you haven't provided any link. I'm willing to bet that your "looked pretty close" is nothing like the Mini.


And, besides, if Google is designing Samsung products for them, where did the $3.5 B in R&D go?
Edited by jragosta - 6/1/12 at 4:23pm

 

schmuck??? Once you start calling names, you lost the argument. 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not call it a 'tablet'. The picture of this Samsung photo frame been around forums many times so it's not a big news, but a reminder. And it does not much matter what it is, as long as it's an electronic device with LCD display.

 

But my point is that this design (black glossy frame, rectangle with rounded corners and thin chrome around) Samsung created few years before Apple did. And this design is applicable to many types electronic devices with large LCD display, e.g. phone, tablet, TV, handheld GPS, MP3 player, etc.  

 

And as you can see it does not take Apple nor Sir Jonathan Ive to create that design.  

Edited by mercury99 - 6/2/12 at 3:57pm

While these are obviously picked too, it shows that there's a much wider range than the typical cliche gif.

I was just thinking I didn't believe Samsung had a tablet in 2006. They did use the shape though.

They still used that shape in a design. I don't think it matters beyond the point of if you feel these lawsuits are justified. I also have to wonder where the necessary ARM and NAND hardware was around the time of many of these earlier tablets. Apple used small HDDs in their ipods for years. The only thing that surprises me a little is that RIM didn't really test this before Apple and the ipad(unless I'm mistaken and I just haven't heard of it). I mean when back when their sales initially took off.

Tallest deals with ignorant and/or antagonist peasants all day long and manages a pretty reasonable composure if you ask me. Could he be more robotic, as you suggested? Sure, but why would I want to post on a forum where the moderators aren't involved in the topic at hand. If you don't like the forum, post elsewhere.

The question these people who want to derail threads discussing a moderator's forum activity need to ask themselves is, "Is the mod's posting style any different than before he was given this forum privileges?"

So now you're claiming that Chromebox is a Google product that is merely manufactured by Samsung yet it has the assembly company's name prominently on the front but not the company that actually designed and made the product? Considering you keep saying that Apple doesn't use alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass despite 1) being the company that had Corning create it, 2) that you need that type of structure for thin panels, and 3) Apple lists Corning as a parts supplier I suppose I can see how you'd think Samsung was nothing more than Google's Foxconn for assembling the Chromebox.

 

Even still, my 27" Cinema Display doesn't look like this:

 

I do see strong similarities from the front, but the edge is plastic. Here is the side view of that model Samsung:



I apologize for the mistreatment by another member of the forum.


He's a persistent troll. It's not just for that one post. The only thing he does is post things to disrupt and side track discussions, that post is just a hint at previous and likely future behavior.

Also, when one gets banned for trolling, signing up under a new name is a bannable in itself.