AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins stay on posting 'Samsung did not copy iPad' UK notice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins stay on posting 'Samsung did not copy iPad' UK notice

post #1 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:08pm
Thread Starter 
Apple on Thursday won a reprieve on a court order requiring the company to post notices on all its EU websites as well as a number of print publications proclaiming Samsung's Galaxy Tab does not infringe on iPad design patents.

A London court granted Apple's request to postpone any postings until the company has the opportunity to appeal the previous ruling in October, reports All Things D.

In a ruling last week, U.K. Judge Colin Birss ordered Apple to post a statement on its website and "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad.

According to the stipulations provided by Judge Birss, Apple would have been required to provide a link to the judge's order on the front page of its EU websites for one year and publish similar notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 ?in a font size no small than Arial 14 on a page earlier than page 6.?

An Apple attorney argued that the notices would amount to Apple-sponsored advertisement of a competitor's device as the company needs to purchase ad space in the above publications.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


Earlier in July, Judge Birss noted that Samsung's tablet was not "cool" enough to be mistaken for an iPad but also said Apple's patent infringement allegations could potentially tarnish Samsung's image.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:19pm

i'm sorry but wasn't jony ive just knighted?  the judge should just ask him if he thinks samsung copied his designs.

Reply
Reply
post #3 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:21pm

Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick. 

 

All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:

 

 

1000

 

 

 

1000

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #4 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:40pm

That ruling was one of the stupidest I've ever heard of.

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:48pm
We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'a child' (or in this case, a company) behaves badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

..and as for 'certain people' trying to rewrite history, here's the truth:

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg32/scaled.php?server=32&filename=screenshot20111201at114.png&res=landing
Edited by DaHarder - 7/26/12 at 8:05pm
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #6 of 57
7/26/12 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'children' behave badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

So you are suggesting that the judge should issue a public apology? That's a great idea.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 57
7/26/12 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'children' behave badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

 

This whole ordeal is about one company legally trying to stop another company from blatantly copying their hardware designs, software features, accessories, boxing and even storefront.

 

How you came to such an immature conclusion, I have no idea.  But this isnt the first time you posted something, looking for extra attention.  Colour me unsurprised.

Reply
Reply
post #8 of 57
7/26/12 at 8:30pm
Whether a judge passes a judgement or not, i think Samsung copied Apple, and that's my judgement.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 57
7/26/12 at 8:50pm
EU websites?

Including countries where Samsung has been found to have copied Apple's designs, sounds like this Judge is inciting Apple to commit contempt in jurisdictions outside his ruling.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #10 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:05pm
This is getting stupid. What next? Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he loves Samsung... in his boxers?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'a child' (or in this case, a company) behaves badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

Indeed. Samsung should post it in 20pt text at the top of all their websites and on every Samsung smartphone and tablet box:

We, Samsung, acting as patsies for our overlords Google, shamelessly ripped off a ton of stuff from Apple, and we are not sorry, because we are scumbag ripoff merchants with no ethics or respect for the rule of law.

We also contemptuously flooded as many legal systems around the world with as much nonsense as we can and destroyed key evidence... because we have no regard whatsoever for any standards expected of us as a major international corporation.


Edited by sr2012 - 7/26/12 at 9:19pm
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

..and as for 'certain people' trying to rewrite history, here's the truth:
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg32/scaled.php?server=32&filename=screenshot20111201at114.png&res=landing

LOL. That is ridiculous. Those are square boxy plastic crappy "tablets" running Windows. In which case what is the iPad supposed to violate?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick.

 

All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:

 

 

1000

 

 

 

1000

 

 

 

 

 

These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

Reply
Reply
post #14 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

LOL. That is ridiculous. Those are square boxy plastic crappy "tablets" running Windows. In which case what is the iPad supposed to violate?

Rectangles duh!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 57
7/26/12 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

Of course they are
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 57
7/26/12 at 10:14pm

I hate judges that to try to play off like they're Solomon...

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply
post #17 of 57
7/26/12 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

That ruling was one of the stupidest I've ever heard of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

I hate judges that to try to play off like they're Solomon...

I don't agree with the ruling but I love the penalty. Slapping a company with a fine means little to them. That's why Samsung has taken all these risks by copying Apple in the first place. The most that's going to happen to them is they get what is effectively a slap on the wrist to the bottom line. But for a company to have to make an embarrassing statement seems very effective, it's just too bad that the judge is wrong.

I hope the quoted statement "'Samsung did not copy iPad' is just something AI writers made up because that wasn't the ruling in this court case. It was focused on a specific Samsung tablet, not all tablets from Samsung and not all types of copying that could be done by Samsung.


PS: it's great how DaHarder talks about damage by other companies and yet doesn't see how Samsung harmed the market.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #18 of 57
7/26/12 at 10:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

This is getting stupid. What next? Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he loves Samsung... in his boxers?

Wait, is that supposed to be "Tim Cook to make a personal video - saying how he loves Samsung - in his boxers"?

 

Or, is it supposed to be "Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he 'loves Samsung in his boxers'"?

 

I find both possibilities disturbing...

Reply
Reply
post #19 of 57
7/26/12 at 11:23pm
Its clear that this judge is still using his blackberry.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 57
7/27/12 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

 

 

 

 

 

These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

Of course they do. It just so happened that after the Iphone allmost all smartphones look like iPhone (more or less with some very straightforward copies).

Reply
Reply
post #21 of 57
7/27/12 at 1:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

LOL. That is a fellatious... oops I mean fallacious argument. If Nordstrom made a very unique car tomorrow, and then Ford copied it, you can't say, oh, not counted, because Nordstrom never made cars. That would be illogical.

The issue is the thing being copied. In the case of a Nordstrom car, it's easy because if the car is unique then clearly they didn't copy anyone. If Ford copied it it's simply all the more obvious because it shows they have had a track record of making stuff but now just couldn't be bothered innovating (in this hypothetical scenario).

Obviously, replace Nordstrom above with Apple and Ford with Samsung.

So not only has Samsung been making phones for a long time, in this case it's just blatantly, blindingly obvious they couldn't be bothered innovating and just copied Apple.

The fact that Apple came out of the gates with stunning, innovative designs clearly shows the originality of their invention, but it does not let Samsung off the hook in any way.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 57
7/27/12 at 2:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick. 

 

All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:

 

 

THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf

 

Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf

 

 

1000

Reply
Reply
post #23 of 57
7/27/12 at 2:08am

Unbelievable. The Judge found that Samsung did not copy Apple designs and yet so many people are still whining like a bunch of babies. Get over it. Apple lost. It's no big deal. Move on. I doubt it's going to stop anyone buying an iPad in the future. There is always a risk when you take legal action that it will backfire. I'm sure if the appeal is dismissed Apple will eat some humble pie and move on.

Reply
Reply
post #24 of 57
7/27/12 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick. 

 

All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:

 

 

1000

 

 

 

1000

 

It's easy to cherry-pick devices to make a point like this. I'm sure I could pick a handful of Apple's devices and make it look like they've copied Sony (which, of course, they haven't). A couple of Samsung's phones [i]are[/i] a complete rip-off of Apple's designs but the vast majority follow a clear evolution in Samsung design that started well before the iPhone.

Reply
Reply
post #25 of 57
7/27/12 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

 

THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf

 

Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf

 

 

Samsung's counter image is ridiculous. They are trying to prove a negative by saying "look, here are a bunch of phones we've made that don't rip off iPhone, ergo none of our designs rip off iPhone"

 

The fact that Samsung still make (less successful) phones based on their old designs does not diminish the fact that some of their new designs are direct copies of the iPhone and iPad.

 

To prove their case they don't need to produce examples of new designs that *don't* look like iPhone, they need to produce examples of old (pre-iPhone) designs that *do* look like iPhone.

 

From their own picture it is evident that none of their old "bar-type" designs look as much like an iPhone as the Galaxy series does.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #26 of 57
7/27/12 at 4:14am

This judge needs to be fired.

Reply
Reply
post #27 of 57
7/27/12 at 4:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

i'm sorry but wasn't jony ive just knighted?  the judge should just ask him if he thinks samsung copied his designs.

Good one! Lol
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #28 of 57
7/27/12 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

 

THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf

 

Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf

 

 

1000

 

Concept designs. Anyone can pull concept designs straight out of their ass. One of them went on to be the F700. In which case Samsung's argument would be no better than Prada's.

 

The iPhone was already in development years before its release. 

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #29 of 57
7/27/12 at 5:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

So, a company [Apple] which never produced any phones before suddenly, out of the blue, came up with a magical phone like no other, a divinely inspiration. I don't think so.

 

 

700700

 

 

 

 

In 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Prada already released working products, not just an empty shell with a logo on it. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. If you marry the two phones above, you'll get a bastard phone which is named, strangely enough, not an I-bastard but an Iphone.

 

Then Apple came up with this exhibit believed to be its 2006 phone prototype:

 

700

 

 

But, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototype" looks, Apple chose to use Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." or even "stolen from..."  Sony.  Hilarious! I don't know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple. Methink, Sony should sue the crap out of crApple.

 

LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of the I-bastard, ehrl, Iphone device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down. 

 

 

 

 

Development of the iPhone began in 2005 ore even earlier. We know that much. 
 
 
Nor was iPhone development such a big secret. 
 

Edited by Quadra 610 - 7/27/12 at 9:25am
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #30 of 57
7/27/12 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

 

THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf

 

Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf

 

 

1000

Unfortunatly none of the phones pictured are actually turned on.

 

Also, one would think that if Samsung were such an innovator and had forseen a vision of touch screen smartphones in the near future, with such a deep, deep history making phones that they would have written their own OS. But no, they used Android, which happened to be written by a company who's CEO just happened to have a sneak peak at a finished product.

Reply
Reply
post #31 of 57
7/27/12 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

 

 

 

 

 

These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

The only thing that's actually misleading here is your use of a confused cause and effect fallacy as an argument.  Smart phones gained popularity because of the iPhone, not the other way around.  You also had people using high-end Nokias and BlackBerries, which were smartphones, and despite that, their designs did not survive or had to change after the iPhone came out, whereas the iPhone retains essentially the same design.

 

There is no evidence or reason to believe that the market would have shifted the way of the iPhone had the iPhone never actually existed (the LG Prada, released 4 months before the iPhone and which people claim Apple copied, never saw much success), but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that everyone switched to an iPhone-style after the iPhone came out.

Reply
Reply
post #32 of 57
7/27/12 at 7:36am

Regarding to different independent rumors, Judge Colin Birss is member and Fan of FC Chelsea football club, which has the main sponsor  SAMSUNG. So it is highly reliable that he is biased. Further there is not any chance for a final stay of this decision, because it infringes several aspects of european laws, especially because in other EU countries trials decided contrary. A publication f.e. in the international edition of newspapers would so contradict other european courts decisions. Probable that this judges career tends to its end now.

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply
post #33 of 57
7/27/12 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

Samsung's counter image is ridiculous. They are trying to prove a negative by saying "look, here are a bunch of phones we've made that don't rip off iPhone, ergo none of our designs rip off iPhone"

The fact that Samsung still make (less successful) phones based on their old designs does not diminish the fact that some of their new designs are direct copies of the iPhone and iPad.

To prove their case they don't need to produce examples of new designs that *don't* look like iPhone, they need to produce examples of old (pre-iPhone) designs that *do* look like iPhone.

From their own picture it is evident that none of their old "bar-type" designs look as much like an iPhone as the Galaxy series does.

In addition, the pictures Samsung provided are mostly prototypes. In a sense, they make Samsung's argument weaker, not stronger. That photo essentially proves that Samsung was thinking "there are lots of other designs that we could have used and we even made prototypes of a lot of other designs that are significantly different than the iPhone, but after the iPhone came out, we chose the design that looked the closest to the iPhone." They essentially proved Apple's case.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 57
7/27/12 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

In addition, the pictures Samsung provided are mostly prototypes. In a sense, they make Samsung's argument weaker, not stronger. That photo essentially proves that Samsung was thinking "there are lots of other designs that we could have used and we even made prototypes of a lot of other designs that are significantly different than the iPhone, but after the iPhone came out, we chose the design that looked the closest to the iPhone." They essentially proved Apple's case.

Bingo. Good night. 'Nuff has been said by sensible people here. Of course AI Forums is popcorn entertainment for me, but I gotta go now.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 57
7/27/12 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


They essentially proved Apple's case.

 

 

Hrmmmm.....the subject is trial strategy.  Here we have an opinion as to trial strategy by a person who has never been to law school, not even the worst law school in the entire country, not even attaining a rank of the bottom of the class.  A guy who has never, not even once in his life, decided upon proper trial strategy.

 

And he's saying that the trial strategy is 180 degrees off - that it does not advance the case, but instead, that it proves the case brought by the other side.

 

And on the other side, we have the law firm of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, a Madison Avenue firm, with some of the best legal minds on the country.  The lead attorney in the case is Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq.   Who is this guy who supposedly commits a gaffe so horrendous that he proves Apple's case for them?  Who is he?

 

In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the Daily Journal as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in California. In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by The National Law Journal as one of 10 top lawyers in "Winning," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators. In January 2010, The American Lawyer awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by IP Law and Business. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was The American Lawyer's list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45.  In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the California Daily Journal as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state.  The Journal reported:  "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene."  In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by California Law Business as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old.  Chambers USA has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property.  Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source IP Law and Business, April 2003). Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 13-0. 

 

 

Sorry, but given a choice between a distinguished, experienced trial lawyer, and some guy who has exactly ZERO credentials, ZERO experience, and ZERO credibility in the area of trial strategy, I'll pick the guy who was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the country.

 

Sorry, JR, but your opinion is being discarded as uninformed.

Reply
Reply
post #36 of 57
7/27/12 at 9:27am

Some of the shame I felt at being a Brit (after the Judge made that stupid order) is now lifting. Let's hope his peers in a higher court order Birss to apologise to Apple.

Reply
Reply
post #37 of 57
7/27/12 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

They essentially proved Apple's case.


Hrmmmm.....the subject is trial strategy.  Here we have an opinion as to trial strategy by a person who has never been to law school, not even the worst law school in the entire country, not even attaining a rank of the bottom of the class.  A guy who has never, not even once in his life, decided upon proper trial strategy.

And he's saying that the trial strategy is 180 degrees off - that it does not advance the case, but instead, that it proves the case brought by the other side.

And on the other side, we have the law firm of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, a Madison Avenue firm, with some of the best legal minds on the country.  The lead attorney in the case is Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq.   Who is this guy who supposedly commits a gaffe so horrendous that he proves Apple's case for them?  Who is he?

In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the 
Daily Journal
 as one of the "
Top 100
" lawyers in California. In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by 
The National Law Journal
 as one of 10 top lawyers in "
Winning
," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators. In January 2010, 
The American Lawyer
 awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "
Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year
." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by 
IP Law and Business
. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by 
The American Lawyer
 as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was 
The American Lawyer's
 list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45.  In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the 
California Daily Journal
 as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state.  The Journal reported:  "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene."  In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by 
California Law Business
 as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old.  
Chambers USA
 has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property.  Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source 
IP Law and Business, April 2003
). Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 13-0. 



Sorry, but given a choice between a distinguished, experienced trial lawyer, and some guy who has exactly ZERO credentials, ZERO experience, and ZERO credibility in the area of trial strategy, I'll pick the guy who was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the country.

Sorry, JR, but your opinion is being discarded as uninformed.

It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 57
7/27/12 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.

 

Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark. I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 57
7/27/12 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.

 

Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark. I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 57
7/27/12 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.

 

Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark. I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins stay on posting 'Samsung did not copy iPad' UK notice