or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded - Page 2

post #41 of 117
Samsung might just be overplaying its hand. If they're in the right why are they going to such lengths to win over the public? It's quite pathetic. It's not like Samsung is this tiny company and Apple is the big bully. If publicly releasing excluded evidence is illegal the judge shouldn't let Samsung get away with it.
post #42 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunspot42 View Post

 

Well, it's even worse than that.  By that point in the middle of the last decade, Apple already had iPhone designs which looked a lot like what would eventually become the iPhone 4 - the rounded corners, flat front and back, bezel size, home button, side switches, the works.  It appears one of their designers then decided to conduct a thought-experiment, "What would this design look like in Sony drag (circa 1983)."  So they added a few old skool Sony-styled buttons and switches to it, and that little Sony-esque knob.

 

None of which I might add ever made it into either the original iPhone, the iPhone 3G or the iPhone 4.

 

 

These are common design exercises - "How would Sony do it?"  "How would Le Corbusier do it?" "How would Geiger do it?". The difference is Apple never released and never attempted to make money from this homage, whilst Samsung manufactured their Apple-copy and made money from it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why don't you explain what Apple has done that's the equivalent of violating a direct order from a judge - not once, but twice?

 

I don't expect a direct answer to this, only more weasel words from DaHarder.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #43 of 117

Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded

 

Shocking?

 

Not really. Business as usual at Samsung. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/business/worldbusiness/20samsung.html

 

 

New Bribery Allegation Roils Samsung
 
SEOUL, South Korea, Nov. 19 — Samsung, which has vigorously denied bribery charges in a snowballing corruption scandal, sustained another blow to its image on Monday when a former legal adviser to President Roh Moo-hyun said the company had once offered him a cash bribe.
 
The former aide, Lee Yong-chul, who also served as a presidential monitor against corruption, said that the money — 5 million won ($5,445) — was delivered to him in January 2004 as a holiday gift from a Samsung Electronics executive, but that he immediately returned it.
 
Before sending it back, Mr. Lee said, he took pictures of the cash package, which were released to the news media on Monday.
 
“I was outraged by Samsung’s brazenness, by its attempt to bribe a presidential aide in charge of fighting corruption,” Mr. Lee said in a written statement released at a news conference by a civic organization. He did not attend the event.
 
James Chung, a spokesman for Samsung Electronics, said, “We are trying to find out the facts around these allegations.”
 
Samsung Electronics is the mainstay of the 59-subsidiary Samsung conglomerate and a world leader in computer chips, flat-panel television screens and cellphones.
 
Mr. Lee’s accusation appeared to support recent assertions by a former chief lawyer at Samsung, Kim Yong-chul, that the conglomerate had run a vast network that bribed officials, prosecutors, tax collectors, journalists and scholars on behalf of Samsung’s chairman, Lee Kun-hee.
 
Prosecutors are investigating Mr. Kim’s accusations, and political parties have introduced legislation that would establish an independent counsel.
 
Opposition political parties say an independent prosecutor is needed because Mr. Kim identified the president’s new chief prosecutor, Lim Chai-jin, as one of many prosecutors to have received bribes from Samsung. Mr. Lim denied the assertion.
 
President Roh’s office dismissed the call for an independent counsel as an election-year political maneuver. The South Korean presidential election is scheduled on Dec. 19.
 
As the scandal expanded, the chairman, Lee Kun-hee, was absent Monday from a ceremony commemorating the 20th anniversary of the death of his father, Lee Byung-chul, Samsung’s founder. Company officials cited a “serious cold and illness from fatigue.”
 
Lee Yong-chul, the former presidential aide, now a partner at a law firm in Seoul, issued his statement and pictures through the National Movement to Unveil Illegal Activities by Samsung and Its Chairman, an organization that was started by civic groups after Mr. Kim’s allegations were made public.
 
Calls to Mr. Lee’s office were not returned on Monday.
 
“This is proof that Samsung’s bribery has reached not only prosecutors but the very core of political power, the Blue House,” the group said at the news conference, referring to the South Korean presidential office. President Roh’s office called that assertion “pure speculation.”
 
Mr. Lee said the bribe he received in 2004 was delivered after an executive at Samsung Electronics asked him whether his company could send him a holiday gift. Mr. Lee said he accepted, thinking that it would be a simple gift.
 
He said that when he returned the money with a protest, the Samsung executive apologized. The executive said he had simply allowed his company to send the gift in his name and had not known it contained cash, Mr. Lee related.
 
The executive could not be reached for comment. Samsung said the man left the company in June 2004 and now lived in the United States.
 
Lee Yong-chul said he decided to go public after reading about the lawyer Kim Yong-chul’s whistle-blowing. He said he believed Mr. Kim’s assertion that Samsung had run a systematic bribery effort.
 
Samsung has denied Mr. Kim’s allegations as “groundless.” A couple of Samsung executives Mr. Kim accused of delivering bribes have sued him.
 
In his statement, Lee Yong-chul said the cash was delivered to him while prosecutors were investigating assertions that Samsung and other conglomerates had provided large amounts of illegal campaign funds to presidential candidates during the 2002 election, which Mr. Roh won.
 
Several campaign officials for Mr. Roh and his opponent, Lee Hoi-chang, as well as Samsung executives, were convicted of playing major roles in raising slush funds in that campaign.
 
 
 
 
More recent:
 
 
Bribery, Massive Corruption at Samsung, Says Exposé by Former S. Korean Prosecutor
 
. . . In addition, a lawmaker said she had once been offered a golf bag full of cash from Samsung, and a former presidential aide said he had received and returned a cash gift from the company.
 
Lee Kun-hee, the chairman of Samsung, was convicted of hiding more than $42 million from tax collection, and received nothing more than a suspended sentence. The media decided not to mention the whistle-blowing book at all, despite it achieving remarkable sales for a non-fiction book in that country. (Not a single newspaper published a review, and the only discussion of the book mentioned its sales--but not its title or author. Yeah, you read that right. They left out the title.) Even worse, the media refused to print any op-eds or articles explaining, let alone backing, Kim Yong-chul's side, out of fear that Samsung would pull advertisements from their TV shows and newspapers.
 
 
 
 
South Korea makes example of Samsung corruption
 
Samsung has been publicly forced to get its act together to stamp out corruption, with the South Korean government choosing to make an example of it. 
 
According to a top industry consultant familiar with the company, Samsung's legal "philanderings" are no secret. While other companies are also at it, the South Korean government is keeping them safe as it looks to drive revenue and reputation to the country.
 
The comments come as news of shadiness inside Samsung spreads, after an inspection found that elements of the company were involved in corruption. 
 
The findings led to CEO Oh Chang-Suk stepping down and Lee Kun-Hee, chairman of the company, claiming there would be some managerial changes.
 
However, he would not specify what the investigation had uncovered - only saying that it included taking bribes and enjoying hospitality from suppliers. He said the "worst type" of abuse was pressure on junior staff to commit corrupt acts.
 
"Corruption and fraud" at Samsung Techwin came about accidentally, and was a result of a "complacent attitude during the past decade", he told reporters
 
This isn't the first time Samsung has been alleged to have its hands in the till. In 2007 the company's former executives accused it of bribing police and politicians to stop probes into its management, while in 2009 the chairman, along with nine other senior executives, were indicted on tax dodging charges. 
 
According to our analyst, speaking under condition of anonymity, these are well known facts. 
 
"Let's be honest, Samsung's philanderings are not a secret, the company has been at it for years," he said. 

 

 

post #44 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post

This is clearly a case of Contempt of Court. You can go to prison for that - indefinitely. Someone should too, Samsung have been playing this case (and others) in the media to poison the public against Apple and for Samsung. I hope the Judge smacks them down - hard.

Part of that smack might be to let the jury be told what Samsung did and how it is contempt etc.which will leave a bad taste in the collective mouth and could hurt things for Samsung

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #45 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Just how old are you?  I've been viewing AppleInsider for years and you are by far the most juvenile, biased and sophomoric moderator I've ever read.

From the comments on an average day I feel like I'm reading the Cartoon Network and not a tech site.

If you have been hanging around that long then you might have noticed that it helps at least to indicate who you are responding to, if not actually quote the post.
post #46 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Now, a judge tells them not to release information and they do it anyway.
Do they really think they're above the law?

I think it is more of a question: Do they really think they're above contempt of court?

"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 #47 of 117
Hey... I guess somebody hired Kim Jong Il's old speech writer 1wink.gif
"lost in translation"

Pretty certain that the jury will vote in Apple's favor... Question is how much...
post #48 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?

If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial.  This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing.  That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.

It was a brilliant move by Samsung.

How old are you? That's not how it works. Disobeying a judge doesn't put the judge on the hot seat, it puts you in jail. It's more likely a desperate PR move because it is irrelevant to the case whether Apple copied Sony.

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
post #49 of 117
Well Christopher Stringer is famous now. I wonder which other designers will be called to testify? Having all these designers testify might benefit Apple more than Samsung, I read some of this stuff and think 'wow that would be a cool place to work'. lol.gif

Meet the 16 ‘crazy’ designers of Apple’s iPhone

San Jose, California: Apple Inc’s celebrated industrial design team is a group of around 16 “maniacal” individuals from all over the world who spend a lot of time brainstorming around a kitchen table.

The world’s most valuable technology corporation on Tuesday allowed a rare glimpse into a zealously guarded internal hardware design process that has produced some of the world’s most celebrated consumer electronics.

In a high-profile US patent infringement trial against Samsung Electronics Co Ltdthat began this week, it called 17-year Apple design veteran Christopher Stringer as its first witness.

Stringer looked every inch the designer with his shoulder-length hair, salt-and-pepper beard, wearing an off-white suit with a narrow black tie.

“Our role is to imagine products that don’t exist and guide them to life,” he told the jury.

Apple’s products — particularly the seminal iPhone — are held in high regard throughout the industry. The gadget that revolutionised the smartphone industry is prominently displayed in the avant-garde San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

The company, which is accusing its South Korean arch-foe of stealing iPhone and iPad design and features, owes a debt to creative guru Jonathan Ive and his cadre of designers a s sembled from Britain, Australia, the United States, Japan, Germany over more than a decade.

Stringer said Apple’s group of 15 to 16 industrial designers — headed by the British-born and recently knighted Ive — work on all of the company’s products and dedicate time every week to discuss them, mostly at the kitchen table.

That’s where the group is “most comfortable,” he said.

Ive’s team leads works out of a large, open studio on Apple’s campus in Cupertino, California, with music blaring through a giant sound system and access strictly limited to a small portion of employees, according to a 2006 profile of Ive in Business Week.

BRAINSTORMING

Most of the team have worked side-by-side for 15 to 20 years, said Stringer, who has “hundreds” of design patents to his name.

“We have been together for an awfully long time,” Stringer said. “We are a pretty maniacal group of people. We obsess over details.”

Over the years, the team earned a reputation for blending the aesthetically appealing with the functional. Stringer worked on the original iPhone — internally codenamed M-68 — and almost all of Apple’s mobile products.

Once a product design idea is solidified through a brainstorming session, the design team sketches those ideas and models it through a Computer Aided Design process.

The design team doesn’t follow a linear creative process from idea to sketch, model and then to engineered demo, Stringer said. Developed concepts will be scrapped if a better idea comes along, he said.

“We are always doubting. We are always questioning.”

Stringer listed some of the manufacturing problems for the original iPhone, from putting glass in close proximity to hardened steel to cutting holes in the glass.

“People thought we were crazy,” he said.

5z2y5u.jpg
Stringer's the dude with long hair and beard on the left.
Edited by Rogifan - 7/31/12 at 8:35pm
post #50 of 117
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
If you have been hanging around that long then you might have noticed that it helps at least to indicate who you are responding to, if not actually quote the post.

 

Thanks for the tip. He put it to good use in another thread. lol.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #51 of 117

One form of design process is to attempt and empathize what aspires you, either through trying to understand their spirit, thought process or in this case creative company culture to break out of your own process. Hopefully ending up seeing some "aha!" moments.

 

Saying that 26% of parts in the first iPhone is Samsung parts doesn't equate to innovation on their part at all, or to show that Apple was lacking in innovation.

As history have shown, it is possible to use existing parts and be creative enough to invent something new.

 

 
 

Edited by moustache - 7/31/12 at 8:25pm
post #52 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

5z2y5u.jpg
 

 

Looks like Jony has been hitting the gym.

post #53 of 117
Looks like Apple did a good job of predicting Sony's future design. lol.gif

One of Apple's prototypes:
apple-prototypes-02-verge-560.jpg

Sony mobile phone from 2009:
sony_ericsson_aino_satio_official_release-540x299.jpg

Actually I think tht prototype is a sweet phone. If they could find a way to make that only thinner I'd be all over it. -1smile.gif
post #54 of 117

If Apple can take Samsung to court over this then other tech companies should start suing each other too. Xerox, please stand up. And Palm (what's left of it) and LG and Sony... I'd like Apple to win so that it'll open the floodgates to more lawsuits. On your mark. Get set. Litigate.

post #55 of 117
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
One of Apple's prototypes:
apple-prototypes-02-verge-560.jpg
Actually I think tht prototype is a sweet phone. If they could find a way to make that only thinner I'd be all over it.

 

It's basically the 2nd gen and 6th gen iPod nano design, but sideways. On the iPod nano, the flat parts are the top and bottom. And with the 2nd gen nano having been released in September 2006, you can bet that there's even priorer (priorlier?) art than that in the form of its prototypes.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #56 of 117
Can someone explain why Samsung didn't meet the discovery deadline? Presumably they had all these documents. Why didn't they turn them over in time? Whining about it now and trying to get the public to believe the judge is biased is pathetic.
post #57 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post


How old are you? That's not how it works. Disobeying a judge doesn't put the judge on the hot seat, it puts you in jail. It's more likely a desperate PR move because it is irrelevant to the case whether Apple copied Sony.

 

I don't see it so much as a PR move, but the only card they can play.  We've all seen the evidence and exhibits, there might be a bit more we don't know about but mostly it's pretty clear that Samsung hasn't got a leg to stand on unless they can prove this one single point.  

 

I think they leaked it for the same reason that the lawyer literally begged it to be included.  It's the only really good card they have.  Without this, they are sunk. 

 

I wish we could get a clear answer to why the pictures of the prototype phones from Samsung that they claim predate the iPhone are being excluded.  I have a good idea why and there are several logical choices as to why, but every time it's reported it seems to be mixed up with the issue of the "Sony" iPhone prototype (mostly because Samsung joins the two together in any statements they make), when the two things shouldn't really be related at all.  

 

This just gives fuel to people like DaHarder (currently set on "ignore" for me, whew!), who rightly point out that the two issues have nothing to do with each other.  The lack of clarity from all sides is infuriating and the third hand reporting by lame tech blogs just muddies things up even more.  

 

The pictures may be excluded because they are predated by the "Purple" iPhone design in 2005, because they were never released as phones, because Samsung can't prove they were actually designed in 2006, or a whole bunch of other possibilities.  It would be nice to get a clear statement on it.  

post #58 of 117
http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-07-31-apple-trial-offers-glimpse-of-kitchen-table-product-design/

While Samsung said during the trial that it had more than 1,000 people working on the design of products, Stringer said Apple’s industrial design team is a small group of about 15 people from countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia and Japan.


So even with more than 1,000 people working on product design they still can't figure out how not to copy Apple. lol.gif
post #59 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

The pictures may be excluded because they are predated by the "Purple" iPhone design in 2005, because they were never released as phones, because Samsung can't prove they were actually designed in 2006, or a whole bunch of other possibilities.  It would be nice to get a clear statement on it.  
I thought they were excluded because Samsung missed the submission deadline.
post #60 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


I thought they were excluded because Samsung missed the submission deadline.

That will happen when you have to hire graphic designers in a hurry to conjure up "old" designs. (^_-)

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #61 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?

If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial.  This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing.  That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.

It was a brilliant move by Samsung.

No it's a stupid move. If a judge issues an order and you violate it, you are in contempt. That pisses off the judge and screws up your appeals attempts. Smart would have been to do nothing and if they lost to file an appeal over the evidence that was unfairly excluded and possible bias

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #62 of 117

If Samsung valued all evidence being used, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed thousands of emails eh?

 

Just being asked to design something the way one company would design something would not constitute copying a design. In fact, it could have been a defensive move to make sure that Apple wouldn't design something that Sony would claim to be copying.  Since the iPhone was something so new, they wanted to make sure that a device of that caliber would not be confused as a Sony product if they were to independently be developing one. (Since Sony is one of few tech companies other than Apple that has a design aesthetic of their own).

 

Remember, the best designs are not created by how many ideas you keep, but how many ideas you throw away. Design is a subtractive process which Jony Ive himself has stated.  So knowing what NOT to do is more important than knowing what to do.  This is something that 99% of people do not understand, and certainly not the "design is an afterthought" competitors.  By designing a "Sony-inspired" iPhone, they found what to remove from the final design.

 

Lastly, designing something as part of the design process does not constitute copying since the design process is an iterative critical process.

post #63 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Putting anyone in jail would be kind of pointless really.

The kind of things Samsung's lawyers are doing are so egregious and so blatantly stupid and self-serving that more and more I think that the problem here is cultural.  This is a case of two groups of people looking at the exact same facts and seeing them completely differently, not a case of some smart lawyer trying to get away with a tricky "tactic."

The comment about them making 26% of the iPhone just shows an absolutely astounding lack of understanding.  It makes no sense to think of these millionaire business dudes and high priced lawyers being so stupid or trying to get away with such ridiculous stuff.  It makes more sense to assume that they just don't "see it" because the cultural basis of the understanding is missing.  

I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."

However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?

I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.
post #64 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-07-31-apple-trial-offers-glimpse-of-kitchen-table-product-design/

So even with more than 1,000 people working on product design they still can't figure out how not to copy Apple. lol.gif

If this is true I find it incredibly amazing. Did they specify which department they were in? Are those people designing washing machines, refrigerators and t.v.'s or do they have 1,000 literally working on phones? I'm seriously curious.
post #65 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's basically the 2nd gen and 6th gen iPod nano design, but sideways. On the iPod nano, the flat parts are the top and bottom. And with the 2nd gen nano having been released in September 2006, you can bet that there's even priorer (priorlier?) art than that in the form of its prototypes.

I love that!

Please say that will be the next iPod mini or even iPod! Awesome, useable and the size is befitting of even a woman's fingers vs. the new nano.

Wow! You're posting cool pics like you did before you had to adopt that rather nerdy signature...

...and it think you were getting at...

You can bet there is earlier art than even these pictures imply regarding prototypes.

Now I understand all the 'one liners' you keep pumping out.
Edited by Vadania - 7/31/12 at 10:16pm
post #66 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

Looks like Jony has been hitting the gym.

I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.
post #67 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

If this is true I find it incredibly amazing. Did they specify which department they were in? Are those people designing washing machines, refrigerators and t.v.'s or do they have 1,000 literally working on phones? I'm seriously curious.
Let me guess...they design by committee. lol.gif
post #68 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.
That picture is from 2010.
post #69 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?

If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial.  This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing.  That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.

It was a brilliant move by Samsung.

It was a desperate move by Samsung., and just serves to make them look guilty. The case isn't about who came up with the idea first (though I can't remember anyone arranging apps into tiles before Apple. I could wrong though) ; it's about Samsung copying Apple's designs.

And don't think that deliberately disobeying the judge (twice!) is going to win them a sympathetic judge at any appeal.

To be honest, I didn't think Apple had much of a case until Samsung started shredding documents. Certainly looks like a company with something to hide.
post #70 of 117
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post
I was about to say the same thing. He's looking seriously buff these days.
Healthy body, healthy mind, I suppose.

 

Schiller is slightly thinner than he once was, too. I imagine they will all be somewhat paranoid about regular checkups from now on.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #71 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

That picture is from 2010.

Really? Well I hope he's managed to stay in good shape. It's important not to let work run your whole life, I think.
post #72 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Then how would you explain the pictures of the phones that were made available to all that predate the original iPhone?

 

If a biased judge won't allow it they let it slip to the press to get a fair trial.  This puts Judge Koh on the hot seat and all but guarantees a retrial if Samsung loses, they knew exactly what they were doing.  That's why the GS3 is the hottest selling phone in the world.

 

It was a brilliant move by Samsung.

 

 

So... a judge that studies the documents in detail and follows a logical argument is "biased" but someone who forms their opinion based on the equivalent of a tweet constitutes a "fair trial".
 
The door is behind you. See ya.
 
The galaxy range are decent phones. They're positively amazing for android standards. But the only thing supporting those tent pole features is the bedrock of useability enhancements first laid down by iOS.
 
post #73 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Schiller is slightly thinner than he once was, too. I imagine they will all be somewhat paranoid about regular checkups from now on.

Very sad, but probably true.
post #74 of 117

I work with Chinese and Korean factories every day.  They have no idea how to come up with their own designs.  Their only motivation is to steal ideas in hopes they can make money because they have no trademark laws.  When we have something made in China or Korea, we have to have the patent/trademark imbedded in the mold so they can't give our molds to another factor for profit.

post #75 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Let me guess...they design by committee. lol.gif

I think you missed the point of my post.

I was saying I don't believe it. If there's truly 1,000 designers working on phones then their result is pretty pathetic. That's 40,000 man-hours per week (not sure why they're called MAN hours) and from what I've seen of their phones, it just doesn't make any sense.

O.k. I looked it up. So MAN hours is what a MAN can accomplish in an hours worth of work. (I know it sounded simple, so i assumed it meant something more than that.) That's rather denigrating... I do however agree if it's physical labor.
Edited by Vadania - 7/31/12 at 11:10pm
post #76 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

I think you missed the point of my post.
I was saying I don't believe it. If there's truly 1,000 designers working on phones then their result is pretty pathetic. That's 40,000 man-hours per week (not sure why they're called MAN hours) and from what I've seen of their phones, it just doesn't make any sense.
I've got to believe that number is across all of Samsung's businesses and includes more than just designers.
Edited by Rogifan - 7/31/12 at 11:09pm
post #77 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded




Shocking?

Not really. Business as usual at Samsung. 


 




Good read, but seriously a pretty crazy post size wise? I think a link or two would have done just fine.

Tallest, now that everyone's read it? Can you shorten it? It's bigger than the originating article.
post #78 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."
However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?
I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.

 

You are right that it's not as simple as I made out.  I thought of some of the same objections to my argument after I made it.  But I think culture has to play a part at some level.  

 

Another thought is that the lawyer (who is likely American, I don't know), is grandstanding and throwing a lot of chaff in the air to distract.  We have to remember that stupid, stupid, OJ Simpson trial where the jury turned out to be easily led by theatrics and conspiracy theories.  This kind of smells similar.  

 

I don't know anyone who didn't just laugh out loud at the stupidity of that "If it don't fit, you must acquit" crapola from Johnny Cochran, and the next day everyone where I work was talking about the absolute ridiculousness of the claim in a factual sense.  Weeks later however, after the trial, when the jury was asked about what went through their minds, most of them thought that the glove thing was some kind of slam-dunk evidence-wise and didn't see it for the grandstanding that it was.  Several of them said that this piece of theatrics accompanied by what was (to anyone with a modicum of intelligence), a ridiculous convoluted conspiracy theory where the police were out to get blacks and framed OJ, was the main reason for their not-guilty votes.  

 

In other words, juries are dumb as bricks on average, and conspiracy theories are more popular than the facts.  The lawyer may be playing to emotions here.  

 

People of Asian descent, especially recent immigrants may have enough of a chip on their shoulder to buy into a conspiracy theory of that type although I don't know if there are any Asians on the jury.  I understand they are quite the minority in the USA.  

post #79 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


Good read, but seriously a pretty crazy post size wise? I think a link or two would have done just fine.
Tallest, now that everyone's read it? Can you shorten it? It's bigger than the originating article.

If he'd shortened it then we might not have got the part about the "Golfbag full of money" which is, in my opinion, priceless.

 

Golf bags stuffed with cash? Who does that?

post #80 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"

 

What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.

And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.

 

In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?

 

And who put the rare earth elements there in the first place? God! God is the real innovator!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded