AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied - Page 2

post #41 of 91
6/13/12 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


There was also an injunction in Australia. Then there was the injunction against Android phones with the data mining feature. And a couple of wins against Motorola.
In the end, the important thing is what I stated. Apple isn't going to get rich off these law suits. But Samsung has stopped making identical copies of Apple products. That is Apple's main objective.
While you're drooling over which individual court battle Apple won or lost, Apple won the war. At least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication, the competitors have greatly toned down their blatant copying. That was the goal.

The injunction in Australia was overturned by a full bench and ruled to be inappropriate, so I don't know how you claim that as a victory. When you say 'data mining', I assume you mean Apple's "data tapping" patent, and that injunction request by Apple against Samsung was quickly dismissed. Regarding Motorola, I have no idea why you bring that up when we are discussing your "copying" allegations against Samsung.

 

The only one drooling over these issues is YOU with your incessant "copying" rants! The bottom line is that the court rulings are not siding with your point of view, and you will continue to be called out by myself and others in these forums until you decide to stop blatantly distorting the facts...

Reply
Reply
post #42 of 91
6/13/12 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Actually, judging by the fcat Samsung sales seem to be increasing at an alarming clip year on year......

 

..... as can be seen by the ever increasing sales numbers. 

Samsung reported its Sales numbers somewhere?

 

LOL. You guys will believe anything....

Reply
Reply
post #43 of 91
6/13/12 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post
Your experience may differ, be it down to bad luck or simple ineptitude on your part but my experience has been a positive one when it comes to expandable storage.

Cool! I am very happy for you!

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 91
6/13/12 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

I don't remember a single decisive win for Apple.  

 

They should  replace their General Counsel.

There you go... that should make you feel happier: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150698/htc-drops-itc-lawsuit-against-apple

Reply
Reply
post #45 of 91
6/13/12 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Samsung reported its Sales numbers somewhere?

LOL. You guys will believe anything....

I actually take any claim that they have posted their numbers seriously, as should you. One day they may really do it, and it'll be best for everyone to be ready to update their knowledge base if it happens. I've certainly been burnt before because I can't remember squat and default to old memories of outdated information.
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
post #46 of 91
6/13/12 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Samsung reported its Sales numbers somewhere?

 

LOL. You guys will believe anything....

There are many ways of extrapolating sales, and several companies are in the business of doing exactly that...

Reply
Reply
post #47 of 91
6/13/12 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

There are many ways of extrapolating sales, and several companies are in the business of doing exactly that...

Yeah, sure. Do let us know when/if Samsung reports actual sales, will ya?

 

Until then, take your extrapolations somewhere else where people are more gullible, e.g., an Android forum.

Reply
Reply
post #48 of 91
6/13/12 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There you go... that should make you feel happier: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150698/htc-drops-itc-lawsuit-against-apple

 

Can you point where is the win against Samsung?

Reply
Reply
post #49 of 91
6/13/12 at 10:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cool! I am very happy for you!

The post was not aimed at you but as your replied, do you care to share your experiences with faulty SD slots or cards or yourself ham fistedly breaking memory expansion in modern smartphones?

I assume your response is because your experience is different than mine.

You are quite the knight in shining armor aren't you!?
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
"Very disappointing to have people judging something without all the facts." - charlituna.
Reply
post #50 of 91
6/13/12 at 11:11pm

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the judge is a Korean American.  Before you say this is a racist comment please know that I am Koreans.  By helping Samsung with this victory will ensure a place in history for this judge in Korea.  25% of South Korea's economy is from Samsung.  The president of Samsung got caught with a $100 million dollar slush fund to pay off judges and lawyers in Korea yet never spent a single day in jail since the president of Korea pardoned him because sending him to jail would hurt the economy.  So help out Samsung with her stupid excuse translates to either fame or money or both. 
 

Reply
Reply
post #51 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


 But Samsung has stopped making identical copies of Apple products. That is Apple's main objective.
While you're drooling over which individual court battle Apple won or lost, Apple won the war. At least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication, the competitors have greatly toned down their blatant copying. That was the goal.

 

If you're happy believing this, well for you

Reply
Reply
post #52 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsung-sucks View Post

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the judge is a Korean American.
 

 

And? Are you accusing her of anything?

Reply
Reply
post #53 of 91
6/14/12 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There was also an injunction in Australia. Then there was the injunction against Android phones with the data mining feature. And a couple of wins against Motorola.
In the end, the important thing is what I stated. Apple isn't going to get rich off these law suits. But Samsung has stopped making identical copies of Apple products. That is Apple's main objective.
While you're drooling over which individual court battle Apple won or lost, Apple won the war. At least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication, the competitors have greatly toned down their blatant copying. That was the goal.

Show me which Samsung device is a identical copy of a Apple device. Not looks similar but an exact copy front to back and in and out.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
post #54 of 91
6/14/12 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

If you're happy believing this, well for you

Rather leave him alone, he is here relentlessly pushing ludicrous self-deceiving nonsense all the day long, today he is claiming that soldened memory chips could be somewhat safer than a sdcard, that you can't have the latter and a efficient battery, etc, more made-up arguments lacking any common sense and of course proven false... It is sadly helpless.

Reply
Reply
post #55 of 91
6/14/12 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Show me which Samsung device is a identical copy of a Apple device. Not looks similar but an exact copy front to back and in and out.

 

Or you can ask him about any trial about identical copy against Samsung  won by Apple

Reply
Reply
post #56 of 91
6/14/12 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Show me which Samsung device is a identical copy of a Apple device. Not looks similar but an exact copy front to back and in and out.

The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Or you can ask him about any trial about identical copy against Samsung  won by Apple

As pointed out above (and as you Apple-haters continue to ignore), Apple won the only thing that matters. Samsung, at least, has stopped making slavish copies of Apple products. The Galaxy SIII, while far too large for my taste and incredibly ugly, is not such a close copy of Apple products that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.

Do you think Apple's goal was to win a few million dollars in a lawsuit? If so, you really don't have any clue how Apple works. Apple simply wanted to be able to maintain its unique position and put a stop to the slavish copying. If the Galaxy SIII is any sign, it looks like Apple succeeded.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #57 of 91
6/14/12 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As pointed out above (and as you Apple-haters continue to ignore), Apple won the only thing that matters. Samsung, at least, has stopped making slavish copies of Apple products. The Galaxy SIII, while far too large for my taste and incredibly ugly, is not such a close copy of Apple products that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.

 

When you don't have any argument do you insult the people you're arguing to?

 

Apple hater my a..., the one full of hatred is you and the one insulting everyone that don't have your opiniones are you

 

And no no Samsung phone was an slavishly copy of iPhones as courts have said,.Please, if you can't show any case were Apple has won, shut up and stop telling lies.

Reply
Reply
post #58 of 91
6/14/12 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Give them an inch…

 

And they take 4.8". ~sigh~

Reply
Reply
post #59 of 91
6/14/12 at 7:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.

There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


As pointed out above (and as you Apple-haters continue to ignore), Apple won the only thing that matters. Samsung, at least, has stopped making slavish copies of Apple products. 

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. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 91
6/14/12 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, sure. Do let us know when/if Samsung reports actual sales, will ya?

 

Until then, take your extrapolations somewhere else where people are more gullible, e.g., an Android forum.

Why do you think people are gullible for believing figures from companies like Nielsen, comScore, Juniper, etc? Are you suggesting that these analytics are not very accurate?

 

And how does Android have anything to do with calculating sales numbers for companies that don't release sales figures?

Reply
Reply
post #61 of 91
6/14/12 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.

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. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...

ROTFLMAO.

The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.

For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.

Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 91
6/14/12 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.
As pointed out above (and as you Apple-haters continue to ignore), Apple won the only thing that matters. Samsung, at least, has stopped making slavish copies of Apple products. The Galaxy SIII, while far too large for my taste and incredibly ugly, is not such a close copy of Apple products that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.
Do you think Apple's goal was to win a few million dollars in a lawsuit? If so, you really don't have any clue how Apple works. Apple simply wanted to be able to maintain its unique position and put a stop to the slavish copying. If the Galaxy SIII is any sign, it looks like Apple succeeded.

But you said identical not close enough from a distance. I'd like to see these identical copies you're referring to, and not just the front. id
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
post #63 of 91
6/14/12 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.
For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.

 

So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?

 

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 not 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...


Edited by e_veritas - 6/14/12 at 10:47am
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 91
6/14/12 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

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.
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/judge-holds-up-ipad-2-and-galaxy-tab-in-court-samsung-lawyers-cant-tell-the-difference-20111014/
"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?
http://www.cultofmac.com/123751/samsungs-lawyers-tell-judge-that-they-cant-tell-the-difference-between-an-ipad-and-a-galaxy-tab/
"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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?

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
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #65 of 91
6/14/12 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.

And what effect did that have on the case other than making Samsungs lawyer look stupid. Id say none since Apple failed to get the injuction. Had I been one of Samsungs other lawyers I would've simply held up a white iPad and a Galaxy Tab and asked if they can be told apart. In my book something black and another white aren't identical copies.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
post #66 of 91
6/14/12 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/judge-holds-up-ipad-2-and-galaxy-tab-in-court-samsung-lawyers-cant-tell-the-difference-20111014/
"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?
http://www.cultofmac.com/123751/samsungs-lawyers-tell-judge-that-they-cant-tell-the-difference-between-an-ipad-and-a-galaxy-tab/
"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?
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.

You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?

 

You are once again giving WRONG information when you state that "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product." I love how you back this claim up by quoting some opinion in an article written 10/14/2011, when Koh's ruling for this case came out 12/3/2011, over 6 weeks later! I have a novel idea, why don't you actually reference the ruling itself, in which the preliminary injunction was DENIED because all 4 of Apple's allegations were not found to demonstrate both infringement and validity?

 

I understand that you feel Samsung copied Apple's IP, but do you really have to continue to present blatantly inaccurate information and distort facts to support your position?

Reply
Reply
post #67 of 91
6/14/12 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.

 

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. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...

He is a anything-but-apple-hater and doesn't have any coherent argument so I wouldn't worry too much. 

Reply
Reply
post #68 of 91
6/14/12 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

for the love of god... I can only imagine what we would have if the money and time defending this crap iOS for kids had been dumped into designing computers for the talented people like before.

Or really? I wasn't aware that Apple had to fund their litigation by reducing their budget for new projects. They must not have enough operating cash if they are taking money away from new product development.

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply
post #69 of 91
6/14/12 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And what effect did that have on the case other than making Samsungs lawyer look stupid. Id say none since Apple failed to get the injuction. Had I been one of Samsungs other lawyers I would've simply held up a white iPad and a Galaxy Tab and asked if they can be told apart. In my book something black and another white aren't identical copies.

Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.

And, once again, none of these cases matters a whole heck of a lot. Apple got what it wanted. Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication. That is what Apple needed to do. The money is incidental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?

You are once again giving WRONG information when you state that "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product." I love how you back this claim up by quoting some opinion in an article written 10/14/2011, when Koh's ruling for this case came out 12/3/2011, over 6 weeks later! I have a novel idea, why don't you actually reference the ruling itself, in which the preliminary injunction was DENIED because all 4 of Apple's allegations were not found to demonstrate both infringement and validity?

I understand that you feel Samsung copied Apple's IP, but do you really have to continue to present blatantly inaccurate information and distort facts to support your position?

I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #70 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.

 

No, copying will be established IF the patents are valid, you have to read better the ruling. It is comprensible that you claim that anybody copies Apple if you can't understand a simple ruling

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication. 

 

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't be more real

Reply
Reply
post #71 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.

Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
post #72 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.

 

No, the trial hasn't started. The injunction wasn't granted because Judge Koh said that Apple patent was likely not valid, but Apple appealed and this decission was reversed and now has asked for the injunction.

 

So, the claim that court have stablished that Samsun has slavishly copied Apple is still false, because the trial hasn't finished and nothing has been stablished

Reply
Reply
post #73 of 91
6/14/12 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, the trial hasn't started. The injunction wasn't granted because Judge Koh said that Apple patent was likely not valid, but Apple appealed and this decission was reversed and now has asked for the injunction.

So, the claim that court have stablished that Samsun has slavishly copied Apple is still false, because the trial hasn't finished and nothing has been stablished

I'm talking about the trial for the injunction (which was settled but then appealed) which has no bearing on the actual patents case. Judges rarely grant injunctions because while the offending product/device might be causing some harm to the plaintiff (Apple) granting an injunction would most certainly cause harm to the defendant (Samsung).
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX to whom I bid farewell.
Reply
post #74 of 91
6/14/12 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.

 

I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in your post.

 

Again...PLEASE stop distorting the facts in order to support of your position...

Reply
Reply
post #75 of 91
6/14/12 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, copying will be established IF the patents are valid, you have to read better the ruling. It is comprensible that you claim that anybody copies Apple if you can't understand a simple ruling

That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?

You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't be more real

Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?

I said that Apple accomplished what has to be its main objective - it got Samsung to stop making slavish copies if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.

Here's an experiment.
Put an iPad next to a Samsung Tab (before all the legal battles).
Now, put a Galaxy SIII next to an iPhone 4s (after all the legal battles).

It is blatantly obvious that Samsung is not making their product look as much like Apple's product as they did before Apple sued them.

So where's the lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.

No, the matter was not settled. The injunction was not granted. The court stated that the Samsung product was a copy of the iPad, but declined granting the injunction until the patent validity was settled. There has not been a hearing yet on infringement (and won't be until the patent validity challenge is settled).
Edited by jragosta - 6/14/12 at 5:45pm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #76 of 91
6/14/12 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in your post.

Again...PLEASE stop distorting the facts in order to support of your position...

One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"

Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.

Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #77 of 91
6/14/12 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
 

jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.

 

In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied. However, that does not mean that it MUST have been copied. For example, what if there was a patent that was invalidated due to previous art? Who then was copied, the one with the patent, or the ones with the prior art? If a patent was invalidated due to being 'non-inventive' and obvious, was it still copying, even though the evolution was deemed 'obvious'?

 

The point that is being made, is that simply having two similar looking products does not necessarily imply "copying". Many design changes naturally take place during technology shifts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some designs may come out looking similar. In fact, across many different consumer products you will see similarities across multiple brands.

 

I would gladly reconsider my position of giving Samsung the benefit of the doubt if something other than "they look similar" was shown to be the case. However, nothing significant has been proven in a court of law, with many allegations being dismissed.

Reply
Reply
post #78 of 91
6/14/12 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.

In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied. However, that does not mean that it MUST have been copied. For example, what if there was a patent that was invalidated due to previous art? Who then was copied, the one with the patent, or the ones with the prior art? If a patent was invalidated due to being 'non-inventive' and obvious, was it still copying, even though the evolution was deemed 'obvious'?

The point that is being made, is that simply having two similar looking products does not necessarily imply "copying". Many design changes naturally take place during technology shifts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some designs may come out looking similar. In fact, across many different consumer products you will see similarities across multiple brands.

I would gladly reconsider my position of giving Samsung the benefit of the doubt if something other than "they look similar" was shown to be the case. However, nothing significant has been proven in a court of law, with many allegations being dismissed.

And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied? And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #79 of 91
6/14/12 at 9:16pm
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied? 

 

Judge Koh did not say that Samsung "copied", she said that it is very well possible that Samsung infringed, but she questioned the validity of Apple's patent. Did you read my previous comment about invalidated patents not necessarily implying copying??

 

Quote:
And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?

 

Are you seriously asking this? Did you even read my previous comment about "looking the same" not necessarily implying copying?

Reply
Reply
post #80 of 91
6/14/12 at 10:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?

 

Strangest logic? If IT is legal copy it, Samsung doesn't have to change anything and that is what you're saying. That according to court wins they have changed thirs phones and that is totally false

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie
 

No, Judge Koh indicated that is LIKELY that Apple would win in the trial, totally different. I repeat, you have to read the court orders, not what some blogs say about it

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"
Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.
Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
 
 
Again, you have to read what the judge have said, not what some blogger thinks she has said.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied