Samsung calls decision to share evidence with media 'ethical' and 'lawful'

post #161 of 176

8/2/12 at 12:44am

Rayz

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 387
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by sennen

Yep.

And the F700 isn't going to help Samsung much anyhow: http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

Mmm.

Based on that, Apple should have let them submit it.

Reply

post #162 of 176

8/2/12 at 1:09am

Vaelian

Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 446
offline
Select All Posts By This User

I need to state a few facts here and hope to cover the entire thread with these:

The first amendment does not cover the entire scope of freedom of speech -- it's limited in scope as it only covers the implementation of federal law (extended to state law by the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment), meaning it does not apply to court orders.
An open trial doesn't mean everything relating to it is public, it only means that the public is allowed to assist the trial.
This same lawyer did actually attempt to bring up excluded evidence in court, an action that the Judge immediately reprimanded with a sanction threat, so the intent to taint the jury by making it seem like the Judge is biased is evident in this case.
This "evidence" was excluded because Samsung "forgot" to submit it before the deadline.
It is important to keep in mind that Samsung has already been found guilty of destroying evidence even after being ordered to retain it, and the jury has been instructed to consider that fact.
If this "evidence" wasn't fabricated then I'd say that a lawyer who forgets to submit something he considers so important before a deadline is pretty incompetent.

Reply

post #163 of 176

8/2/12 at 1:41am

sennen

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,207
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayz

Mmm.

Based on that, Apple should have let them submit it.

Why let them break the rules?

"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 #164 of 176

8/2/12 at 2:07am

uguysrnuts

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 457
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Is johndoe98 really ZZZ?

A pattern in the argument and post is beginning to emerge. Is this really ZZZ or another veteran contrarian with plenty of time to burn in his hands?

Can anyone tell me what is the payoff for these jokers? One goes away, a dozen replacements come. A few longtime "pro Mac" folks all of a sudden feels the need to establish their "alphaness" and make everyone look like idiots, calls them isheep or fanbois.

Or, is this another one of website tactics to jack up postings to prove to ad sponsors their ads are not going to waste?
Edited by uguysrnuts - 8/2/12 at 2:32am

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.

Reply

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.

Reply

post #165 of 176

8/2/12 at 4:57am

Rogifan

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,302
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Apple should want to talk about the F700 as the Galaxy S phones in question look nothing like it but DO look like the iPhone. Also the F700 was announced at the Moblie World Congress a month AFTER the iPhone came out. The Verge did a nice analysis of this a while back.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

EDIT: I see someone had alread posted this, should have checked first.

Edited by Rogifan - 8/2/12 at 5:07am

Reply

post #166 of 176

8/2/12 at 5:03am

jragosta

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,298
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by uguysrnuts

Is johndoe98 really ZZZ?
A pattern in the argument and post is beginning to emerge. Is this really ZZZ or another veteran contrarian with plenty of time to burn in his hands?
Can anyone tell me what is the payoff for these jokers? One goes away, a dozen replacements come.

There are a number of possible explanations:

1. Paid shills. It has happened before.

2. Unpaid shills. People who have some other vested interest in making Samsung or Google's blatant theft succeed. For example, maybe they work for Best Buy and Samsung gives bigger spiffs than Apple, so they want Samsung phones to look more attractive.

3. Maybe Mommy and Daddy wouldn't buy them an iPhone and they had to accept a crappy Android phone, so they're trying to convince themselves that Android is just as good.

4. Some people simply hate Apple and everything Apple does.

5. This is the one I think is most likely: They decided to buy an Android phone for some reason - perhaps even a very good reason. Maybe they're a hacker and want greater access to the internals. Maybe it was price. Maybe they want a physical keyboard. But they suffer from a mild form of narcissistic personality disorder and are unable to accept that the fact that Android or Samsung might have been the best choice FOR THEM doesn't make it the best choice for everyone. Since they are the only ones who matter in their own minds, anyone who doesn't choose the same phone as them is seen as an attack on their ego. NPD is a strange disorder.

In the end, though, it all comes down to the same thing. There is a clear sign of some mental imbalance. It is certainly understandable that someone would like to talk about a product they buy that they are happy with. There is an inherent human need to share positive experiences and it is not surprising that people who like a certain product would go to a web site to share experiences and talk about the product (perhaps getting tips about new features and rumors about future products). But many of the Apple haters here insist that they'd never own an Apple product and actually brag about not using an iPhone or iPad. Yet they spend countless hours here bashing a product they don't use and don't understand - simply because they chose something different. There's something in that activity that just doesn't make sense to someone with a normal mind.

Reply

post #167 of 176

8/2/12 at 5:04am

Rogifan

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,302
offline
Select All Posts By This User

And here's a comment from Eric Schmidt on Charlie Rose's show:

SCHMIDT: Well, in that sense I think the artist role
makes a lot of sense. He's the first person to take computing
and computing platforms and make products that actually cause
people to fall in love. In love with their products, in love
with the artistry, in love with using information. And that I
think is his primary contribution. He also of course has
changed the course of history with the kinds of things he's
done with respect to the scale of the platforms that were
built at Apple.

But I think ultimately if you look at the success of the
iPod, for example, which everybody said couldn't be done, or
the success of the iPhone, which really brought in the
smartphone revolution and really sort of invented it, he will
get the credit. And he and the teams that he led deserve that
credit for doing it.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-07/tech/30253408_1_apple-board-apple-stores-steve-jobs/2#ixzz22OCr1KiZ

So again this idea that Apple was just in the right place at the right time and the smartphone as we know it today would have happened anyway is BS.

Reply

post #168 of 176

8/2/12 at 5:33am

lfmorrison

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry

You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.

If the jury is already sequestered, and will therefore not be exposed to the information Samsung disclosed, then how can the disclosure be construed to have sidestepped an order to exclude the information from the jury's consideration?

I'm coming late to the discussion, sorry. Perhaps this issue has already been addressed, and if so I'd love a summary.

Reply

post #169 of 176

8/2/12 at 5:39am

jragosta

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,298
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by lfmorrison

If the jury is already sequestered, and will therefore not be exposed to the information Samsung disclosed, then how can the disclosure be construed to have sidestepped an order to exclude the information from the jury's consideration?

I'm coming late to the discussion, sorry. Perhaps this issue has already been addressed, and if so I'd love a summary.

This has been answered repeatedly. The jury is not sequestered.

Perhaps instead of asking for someone else to do your reading for you, you could simply read the thread or other sources yourself.

Reply

post #170 of 176

8/2/12 at 5:44am

lfmorrison

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

This has been answered repeatedly. The jury is not sequestered.

I see. Thank you for the clear, succinct, explanation.

Perhaps instead of asking for someone else to do your reading for you, you could simply read the thread or other sources yourself.

And thank you, also, for the characteristic bad attitude.

Reply

post #171 of 176

8/2/12 at 6:09am

jragosta

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,298
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by lfmorrison

And thank you, also, for the characteristic bad attitude.

So expecting you to read things for yourself rather than wanting others to do your reading and summarization for you is a bad attitude?

Geez, kids are getting lazier every day.

Reply

post #172 of 176

8/2/12 at 6:22am

muppetry

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,911
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndoe98

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry

You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.

I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.

Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.

I made no comment on whether Quinn's actions were wrong or on whether he should be sanctioned. Having read your endless posts that simply repeated the same mantra over and over about how Koh's order apparently contradicted the exclusion of evidence, I finally succumbed to the urge to join the farce and point out the error in your argument.

I'm sure you have no hidden, illicit motives. This is not about your inability to read and comprehend a simple, three page court order written in as close to plain English as it gets for that kind of document. You are dissembling, poorly and obviously. It's tiresome and boring, and pretty much derailed the entire thread.

Reply

post #173 of 176

8/2/12 at 6:36am

uguysrnuts

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 457
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Thanks for the comprehensive response. From viewing other sites, I have been aware of these things before. However, I never did understand and probably never will understand the motivation behind these behaviors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

There are a number of possible explanations:
1. Paid shills. It has happened before.
2. Unpaid shills. People who have some other vested interest in making Samsung or Google's blatant theft succeed. For example, maybe they work for Best Buy and Samsung gives bigger spiffs than Apple, so they want Samsung phones to look more attractive.
3. Maybe Mommy and Daddy wouldn't buy them an iPhone and they had to accept a crappy Android phone, so they're trying to convince themselves that Android is just as good.
4. Some people simply hate Apple and everything Apple does.
5. This is the one I think is most likely: They decided to buy an Android phone for some reason - perhaps even a very good reason. Maybe they're a hacker and want greater access to the internals. Maybe it was price. Maybe they want a physical keyboard. But they suffer from a mild form of narcissistic personality disorder and are unable to accept that the fact that Android or Samsung might have been the best choice FOR THEM doesn't make it the best choice for everyone. Since they are the only ones who matter in their own minds, anyone who doesn't choose the same phone as them is seen as an attack on their ego. NPD is a strange disorder.
In the end, though, it all comes down to the same thing. There is a clear sign of some mental imbalance. It is certainly understandable that someone would like to talk about a product they buy that they are happy with. There is an inherent human need to share positive experiences and it is not surprising that people who like a certain product would go to a web site to share experiences and talk about the product (perhaps getting tips about new features and rumors about future products). But many of the Apple haters here insist that they'd never own an Apple product and actually brag about not using an iPhone or iPad. Yet they spend countless hours here bashing a product they don't use and don't understand - simply because they chose something different. There's something in that activity that just doesn't make sense to someone with a normal mind.

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.

Reply

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.

Reply

post #174 of 176

8/2/12 at 7:08am

Venerable

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 107
offline
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndoe98

You all keep repeating this. It makes no sense to me though and I would like a clear explanation. Let me give you an analogy. I say don't go into the room 212 with information X in it. Then someone, perhaps me, puts some information in room 212 for others to see. How can anyone who put information in to room 212 be responsible if you happen to find yourself in room 212? We told you not to go in there, so if you are in there, you did something wrong and no one else did.

Lawyers are officers of the court and are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with that responsibility. It doesn't matter if the jury was full of cardinals and Mother Teresa there is an appropriate time and manner in which to question the judge's conduct and that is not in a press release. Lawyers don't have the benefit of "free speech" while they're actively involved in a trial and they certainly have an obligation to their clients and the legal process to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. Unless, of course, they're trying to obstruct or manipulate the process. It doesn't matter what the jury hears, believes or doesn't believe outside the courtroom, this was a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion (and jurors are members of the public).

Reply

post #175 of 176

8/2/12 at 7:11am