or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs' anti-Android sentiments not a factor in patent trial, judge says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs' anti-Android sentiments not a factor in patent trial, judge says

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
A U.S. District Court judge on Wednesday approved a request to bar statements regarding Google's Android OS made by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs from a patent trial case against Samsung.

Apple sought to bar Jobs' anti-Android sentiments from entering the court proceedings and argued that the statements were not relevant to the patent struggle at hand, reports Reuters.

Jobs was famously quoted in his biography as having said Android is a "stolen product" and that he was "willing to go thermonuclear war" against Google's mobile operating system.

Samsung wanted to introduce the statements in court, arguing that the "thermonuclear" quote "speaks to Apple's bias, improper motives and its lack of believe in its own claims in that they are a means to an end, namely the destruction of Android."

The full statement from Walter Isaacson's "Steve Jobs" reads: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

According to what Jobs told Isaacson, he followed-up his claims by telling former Google CEO Eric Shmidt that "I don't want your money," in regard to a possible settlement. "If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."

Steve Jobs


For its part Apple said the quotes are inadmissible and only serve as a distraction. Judge Koh agreed and said the statements were not germane to the issue on trial.

"I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs," Judge Koh said at Wednesday's hearing.

The day was not a complete loss of Samsung, however, as evidence pertaining to Apple's Chinese operations was deemed eligible for discussion though not in terms of human rights violations. Taxes paid by Samsung in the U.S. can also be discussed but tax avoidance issues regarding the payments are restricted.

Apple first filed suit against Samsung products which allegedly infringed on the "look and feel" of the iPhone and iPad. Most recently the Cupertino-based company won a temporary U.S. injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as well as an identical sales ban for the Galaxy Nexus, though the latter was ultimately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Apple v. Samsung jury trial is set to begin on July 30 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
post #2 of 47

Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #3 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.

But it's was not thrown out because of that.

It was thrown out because what Steve Jobs said is completely irrelevant to the case.

post #4 of 47

^ Both would be valid reasons. If the first argument didn't work they could have gone with the hearsay argument.

 

In other words, Samsung had a snowball's chance in hell of getting Jobs statements into court.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #5 of 47

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

 

What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.

 

BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.

post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

 

What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.

 

BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.

Thanks for the laugh.

post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

So what? It's a red herring.

The case is about whether Samsung violated Apple's design patents. That means that Apple has to prove that Samsung violated that patents and must withstand any challenges to the validity of the patents. Jobs' feelings (or even Apple's mission) are irrelevant. Either the patents were violated or they weren't.
"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 #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.

Really? Their sole mission?

So they have no "mission" to sell iOS devices and computers and software?

 

Quote:
Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

In case you haven't noticed, Steve Jobs has been dead for 9 months now.

post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

 

What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.

 

BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.

 

I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.

 

If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.

 

I'll give you two cents on the dollar, to rid your conscience of the burden of owning Apple products.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #10 of 47
Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.

If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.
Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?

I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.
post #12 of 47
That's an interesting set of arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.
At (absolute) best that is a serious dose of hyperbole. If Apple, or any other similar company for that matter, has a sole mission, it is to design and sell products and thus make money. Simply destroying Android, even if that were possible, does not achieve that basic mission.

Quote:
What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.
So you see bias. Based on what evidence? That her opinion differs from yours?

Quote:
Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.
Are you saying that his ruling against Apple was correct and based on his opinion that there should be no software patents, even though the law permits them?

Quote:
Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
Falling behind in what sense? Which dominance are they losing? If they can't compete, how come they continue to generate by far the highest profits?

Quote:
Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.
So now she should be removed because you disagree with her?

Quote:
BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.
Presumably, since they are falling behind so badly, you will be ditching your Apple products in favor of superior Android technology?
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.

 

Statements he made in private to a biographer. Can you find a single source where Jobs made such a comment in an official capacity while at Apple? Can you find me some official press release by Apple where they stated the same thing?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?
I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.

 

Those things were all in other software before Android and iOS, so technically they both stole from third parties. Or do you actually believe that Android invented them all?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.

If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.
Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?

I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.

As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.

Maybe, but more likely, if that patent is granted and if Apple is found to infringe, they will trade one of their own "world of hurt" patents off against that one and no one loses. Seems to be mostly how it works, and why these companies are so agressive in their pursuit of patent acquisition and enforcement.
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.

 

Is that because Apple took it from the Newton and OSX?

 

I was using the "notification centre" Apple had on iPhones in 2007 a couple of minutes ago, when I sent an email while on a phone call, a zero length swipe on the green notification across the top of my screen, took me back to the in call menu so I could switch off speakerphone and return to the call.

 

What do you think about the scrolling patents Apple was just awarded, seeing as how you brought up "world of hurt"?

 

All Apple has to do when using anything from Android is give acknowledgement in the open source license agreements in the legal information part of their phones.

 

Like Google does with Chrome and Android, where they acknowledge Apple's open source contributions.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #18 of 47

Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?

So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.
 

post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?

So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.
 

Because you lack a discriminating eye doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well. Cars have always looked different and uniquely designed to me and millions of others. And yes. There were patent trials through most, if not all f the last century... whether you are ignorant of them or not.

post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Because you lack a discriminating eye doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well. Cars have always looked different and uniquely designed to me and millions of others. And yes. There were patent trials through most, if not all f the last century... whether you are ignorant of them or not.


I have a very discriminating eye. My first subscription to Hot Rod Magazine began in the late sixties. Way back when I was a gear head I could tell the differences between model years and option packages of just about every American car. I was a car salesman in the 2000s.

 

Similar doesn't mean copy. That is the problem with design patents. Looks don't always go hand in hand with functionality, especially with electronics.

post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

 

What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.

 

BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.

 

You just earned that card, buddy. Congratulations. You will receive your Android Fanboy card directly from Google's fulfillment center within 6-8 weeks.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.

Undeserving of your name, I have since labeled you a troll.

I could post quite a few examples, but I'll leave that to the more savvy people on this forum.

However, I would like to point out to everyone who says "Notification Center", please take a look at androids use of 'folders'.

So maybe they "borrowed" from each other. So what will Apple do when the 'reckoning' comes on 'Notification Center'? Pull out the angelic 'folders' card? That should be a good read...
post #23 of 47

Will be LMAO if Apple loses this case as well. Who you all gonna blame then - the mafia, immigrants, socialists, Obama, CNN, Canada ?  LOL

post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

 

What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.

 

BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.


Wow, Apple is amazing!  Even android fanboys own a significant amount of Apple products.

post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.

 

Isaacson may well have everything Jobs said to him on tape, so it may well be provable that he said it.

post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Isaacson may well have everything Jobs said to him on tape, so it may well be provable that he said it.

That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.

More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.

What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Similar doesn't mean copy. That is the problem with design patents. Looks don't always go hand in hand with functionality, especially with electronics.

Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.
"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 #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.

There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule.  One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests.  Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:

 

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.

post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that "the sheer multitude of Android devices" has anything to do with it.

 

Android is killing Apple in the cellphone market, but in tablets, not so much.  And yet, there are a multitude of Android tablets.

 

Why do people prefer Android phones, but also prefer Apple tablets?

 

I don't think that the multitude of Android devices is a good reason.

post #29 of 47

Apple is starting to fall behind..lol ...what is your prefered choice of smoke ? crack ? 

post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule.  One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests.  Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.

That exception can only be used if the testimony is relevant to the subject being heard. Unfortunately, as Koh ruled, Jobs' opinions on the matter have absolutely no relevance at all to the question of whether Samsung illegally infringed Apple's design patents.
"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 #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Will be LMAO if Apple loses this case as well. Who you all gonna blame then - the mafia, immigrants, socialists, Obama, CNN, Canada ?  LOL
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".

BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.
What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.

Not related? 

 

None of the patent lawsuits would have been started had it not been for his inclination to go on a fit for "ste_aling" his ideas, the first of which is the design "patent" followed by other software "patents". 

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.

 

What about the Apple fans who are calling the decision by a UK judge for Apple to post a statement saying Samsung did not copy its designs? 

 

Last I checked here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151360/uk-judge-rules-apple-must-advertise-samsung-did-not-copy-the-ipad

 

I already spot three people voicing their opinions of this decision as "stupid". 

 

Point is, it goes both ways. 

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.

 

Not sure the London Olympics can be a failure before it's even started. But I take your point we are laughing at them to. Wait until it rains every day and then yeah maybe. I hate London - it's dirty, smelly, noisy, expensive and full of arrogant cockneys, hooray henrys and rich bankers. Fortunately I live a long way from London.

 

No idea what you are referring to re Vancouver. I haven't seen any news about Canada for a while on the UK news channels. Why what happened? Are your health and safety people still training people to walk up stairs or was that just a joke for the Queen?


Edited by Shaun, UK - 7/19/12 at 7:28am
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Not related? 

None of the patent lawsuits would have been started had it not been for his inclination to go on a fit for "ste_aling" his ideas, the first of which is the design "patent" followed by other software "patents". 

So what?

Either the suit has merit or it doesn't. His reasons for filing the suit doesn't change the merits of the case.
"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 #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?

So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.
 

When it's a revolutionary new design it would be easier to patent. Then when you throw in the nearly identical icons and layout of the home screen, the click to unlock, scrolling behaviour, and the way the OS works (a revolutionary new OS design from Apple), plus the obvious fact that Samsung phones, even their pre-announced phones, looked like Blackberries, then all of a sudden those phones were cancelled and Samsung produced iPhone copies instead, you kind of have more of a case. Still, this particular case revolves around a few specific patent violations, which Samsung may be able to obfuscate away.

post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

Sadly, arrogant Apple is not going to lose this case.
It is very, very obvious that this "judge" is biased.

If you call Apple "arrogant," your concept of what constitutes "neutral" in this case is biased against Apple. This makes your claim of the judge's "bias" suspect.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

True, I don't like Apple anymore, but I am not a judge, just a consumer who sees his freedom trampled on by Apple.

Really? What freedom has Apple trampled on?

Oh, I suppose you could argue that your freedom to buy a slavish copy of Apple's products might be hindered somewhat, but that's not a legitimate freedom, anyway. So be specific- which of your freedoms has Apple taken away and how?
"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 #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

What about LG Prada? Wasn't that out before your beloved iPhone?

1.  "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”

 - It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.

 

2.  The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.

 

Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.

 

Cheers

post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

1.  "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”

 - It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.

 

2.  The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.

 

Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.

 

Cheers

 

Since you are talking about 'rapid prototyping', one would have to assume you are trying to imply that SuperJunior stated that Apple copied the LG Prada. That is not what he said. His comment was in response to elroth's claim that the iPhone was a "revolutionary new design". Considering a very similar looking phone won the iF Design Award months before the iPhone was announced, he is merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that claim.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs' anti-Android sentiments not a factor in patent trial, judge says