Originally Posted by e_veritas
How do you know the lawyer wasn't an old fart who didn't have his glasses immediately handy. The point is, the lawyer made it clear he couldn't tell because of the distance, and another lawyer quickly gave an answer. Most reasonable individuals, without the bias that you display, would not consider this incident to be a 'decisive' indication of copying.
The facts are simple. You have a lawyer who had been working with the two products for months. Yet when asked to distinguish them, he couldn't. Yes, the other attorney could, but when the attorneys who have worked exclusively on the product for months can't tell the difference, the similarly is painfully obvious.
If the attorney was blind, he would have mentioned that to the court. Or the attorney could have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer". Or Samsung would have mentioned it in all of the blogs covering the topic. Furthermore, you're ignoring that it wasn't just one attorney who couldn't tell the difference. The way the article is written, NONE of the attorneys could tell the difference at first, although after some time, one (but reportedly ONLY one) of the attorneys figured it out.
"Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered first, stating she couldn’t from that distance, the other Samsung lawyers couldn’t either, but one at least did after some thought."
Want a different perspective?
"According to this report U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked a Samsung attorney if he could tell which tablet was which.
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer."
Sorry, but you're absolutely refusing to consider obvious facts. How much is Samsung paying you?
Originally Posted by e_veritas
So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T
I have never implied that any court definitively ruled that Samsung has never made a slavish copy, in fact, I will even say that a court would NEVER do that. I derive the conclusion that Samsung does make slavish copies from the fact that most of Apple's allegations to that effect have either been dismissed or ruled against. It is Apple's inability to prove that it DOES happen that leads me to believe that it DOESN'T...
Actually, I simply want you to back up the assertions that you make. You said (word for word):
"The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products"
So where are these court rulings that say that Apple was never making slavish copies of Apple products?
Oh, and btw, Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product. From the same article as above:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents," (noting that the subject in front of Koh at the time were design patents - which have to do with appearance rather than functionality.Edited by jragosta - 6/14/12 at 10:52am