or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments - Page 2

post #41 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.

At least if they're biased (and regarding MS they may be) it's out of their beliefs and not because they're paid to be. Not all patent bloggers can say that. ;)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

At least if they're biased (and regarding MS they may be) it's out of their beliefs and not because they're paid to be. Not all patent bloggers can say that. ;)

 

Irrelevant. Bias is bias, regardless of reason. And I've seen many people online post so much garbage about Apple you'd think they must be getting paid, when in fact it's simply their hatred that motivates them.

 

 

Samsung never would have gotten anything out of this ridiculous prior art argument. Apple isn't claiming that all tablets infringe their design. Only tablets that have a specific combination of attributes. This is why the original Galaxy was deemed to infringe in Germany, but the slightly modified one didn't. And looking at all the other tablets out there it becomes clear there are many ways to make a tablet and stil be unique. Just like all Samsung's prototype phones show there are many ways to make a smartphone.

 

This is also why I think Samsung is going to hurt their case showing all their previous designs. If they had so many, then how come the Galaxy S turned out to be so similar to an iPhone?

post #43 of 111

Are there any practicing lawyers here?  The judge's denial seems to go against the concept of surprise evidence and surprise witnesses often seen in courtroom dramas.  What if new evidence is discovered in the middle of a trial?  It cannot be considered?  Does discovery also require both sides to reveal their arguments and strategies before the trial even begins?  What if someone comes up with a new argument during the trial?  It cannot be used?


Edited by Haggar - 8/2/12 at 5:29pm
post #44 of 111

I had this dream, I was sitting at my desk at work, which happened to be a company that manufactured cheap plastic craft and photo products, back when I worked there in the late 80's and as usual, I was tired of dealing with the boring number crunching I had to do for Wal-Mart, my largest customer, on the plastic canvas we sold them.  This was back in the day when computers were still a thing that not everyone had and the ones we were using were horrible, at best, green screen monitors that we could run our company system on.  In the dream I see myself pushing aside this crappy computer and grab a hold of this shiny, like glass, black edged object.  It's seems to be a little less than 10" diagonally in size, rectangular in shape with rounded corner and just a single button towards the bottom middle of the screen within the black edge band - or frame.  That is what it looked like a frame, given the company produced a wide range of photo frames that were sold into the mini-lab and mass markets.  So I touch this button at the bottom of the frame, or maybe it's the side, I can't tell for sure.  It turns on, or whatever it was doing to light up the screen with a full color display sharper, brighter and more bold than any tv or computer I've ever seen.

 

On the screen are a number of square characters/symbols and when I accidentally brush my hand across the screen, the symbols disappear and on the screen appears a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey.  My god, what is this I thought?  A movie player - but it couldn't be because it could no way ever hold a VHS cassette.  And it wasn't connected to any cables or jacks, so it couldn't just be a new fangled thin tv.  Frightened, and a little excited, I push the button on frame again and the movie stops and the screen goes back to showing all the symbols.

 

I was so flustered, I woke up and wrote down all these details, including a pencil drawing of what I saw in the dream.  I notarized the drawing, just in case something like this ever was produced, so I could show people and prove I had some crazy future dream.  Little did I ever expect to be in the position I am with proof positive that my dream IS the prior art that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Apple was not the first to create a tablet computer with the design that has now become ubiquitous with tablet computing.  I'm even a little dizzy with excitement now just thinking about being put on the stand to prove out Apple should have their iPad design patent pulled.  Gosh, all that from a crazy dream.  Who'd a thunk?

post #45 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

You should recuse yourself as you've shown your ignorance on a number of occasions. Edit: Someone beat me to it.

 

 

You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.

It's impossible for a human to be 100% unbiased. 

post #46 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Are there any practicing lawyers here?  The judge's denial seems to go against the concept of surprise evidence and surprise witnesses often seen in courtroom dramas.  What if new evidence is discovered in the middle of a trial?  It cannot be considered?  Does discovery also require both sides to reveal their arguments and strategies before the trial even begins?  What if someone comes up with a new argument during the trial?  It cannot be used?

 

Not a lawyer but my dad was.  Basically courtroom dramas are mostly crap.   Surprise evidence has to be presented to the judge, a DAMN good case made for it to be entered and then the opposing side is also allowed time to review it, usually delaying the trial at least a couple of days.  They had over a year to come up w/this stuff, it was late, tough for Samsung.

post #47 of 111

Also Sprach Koh. 

post #48 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

I had this dream, I was sitting at my desk at work, which happened to be a company that manufactured cheap plastic craft and photo products, back when I worked there in the late 80's and as usual, I was tired of dealing with the boring number crunching I had to do for Wal-Mart, my largest customer, on the plastic canvas we sold them.  This was back in the day when computers were still a thing that not everyone had and the ones we were using were horrible, at best, green screen monitors that we could run our company system on.  In the dream I see myself pushing aside this crappy computer and grab a hold of this shiny, like glass, black edged object.  It's seems to be a little less than 10" diagonally in size, rectangular in shape with rounded corner and just a single button towards the bottom middle of the screen within the black edge band - or frame.  That is what it looked like a frame, given the company produced a wide range of photo frames that were sold into the mini-lab and mass markets.  So I touch this button at the bottom of the frame, or maybe it's the side, I can't tell for sure.  It turns on, or whatever it was doing to light up the screen with a full color display sharper, brighter and more bold than any tv or computer I've ever seen.

 

On the screen are a number of square characters/symbols and when I accidentally brush my hand across the screen, the symbols disappear and on the screen appears a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey.  My god, what is this I thought?  A movie player - but it couldn't be because it could no way ever hold a VHS cassette.  And it wasn't connected to any cables or jacks, so it couldn't just be a new fangled thin tv.  Frightened, and a little excited, I push the button on frame again and the movie stops and the screen goes back to showing all the symbols.

 

I was so flustered, I woke up and wrote down all these details, including a pencil drawing of what I saw in the dream.  I notarized the drawing, just in case something like this ever was produced, so I could show people and prove I had some crazy future dream.  Little did I ever expect to be in the position I am with proof positive that my dream IS the prior art that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Apple was not the first to create a tablet computer with the design that has now become ubiquitous with tablet computing.  I'm even a little dizzy with excitement now just thinking about being put on the stand to prove out Apple should have their iPad design patent pulled.  Gosh, all that from a crazy dream.  Who'd a thunk?

Maybe the dream was influenced by 70s/80s Star Trek. Anyone can play that game.

 

So did you create this tablet? If not, the dream doesn't have any practical value.

post #49 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

It's impossible for a human to be 100% unbiased. 

 

The facts have a pro-Apple bias. 

 

*shrugs*

post #50 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

It's impossible for a human to be 100% unbiased. 
Of course. But it's funny when someone goes out of their way to say they're not biased when they clearly are.
post #51 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

"Dammit Jim,  You know using a Stylus obviates this as Prior Art!"


Brilliant! ROFL
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #52 of 111
Under Samsung's argument (and those who support it) is that a patent wouldn't even be legitimate for a time machine. Apparently anything that has ever been imagined and fictionalized is prior art. I think they don't understand the term "art" isn't the definition their mind.
post #53 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Are there any practicing lawyers here?  The judge's denial seems to go against the concept of surprise evidence and surprise witnesses often seen in courtroom dramas.  What if new evidence is discovered in the middle of a trial?  It cannot be considered?  Does discovery also require both sides to reveal their arguments and strategies before the trial even begins?  What if someone comes up with a new argument during the trial?  It cannot be used?

 

TV lawyers work on imaginary cases. The real stuff is often boring and doesn't fit in half-hour or one hour episodes.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #54 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

I had this dream, I was sitting at my desk at work, which happened to be a company that manufactured cheap plastic craft and photo products, back when I worked there in the late 80's and as usual, I was tired of dealing with the boring number crunching I had to do for Wal-Mart, my largest customer, on the plastic canvas we sold them.  This was back in the day when computers were still a thing that not everyone had and the ones we were using were horrible, at best, green screen monitors that we could run our company system on.  In the dream I see myself pushing aside this crappy computer and grab a hold of this shiny, like glass, black edged object.  It's seems to be a little less than 10" diagonally in size, rectangular in shape with rounded corner and just a single button towards the bottom middle of the screen within the black edge band - or frame.  That is what it looked like a frame, given the company produced a wide range of photo frames that were sold into the mini-lab and mass markets.  So I touch this button at the bottom of the frame, or maybe it's the side, I can't tell for sure.  It turns on, or whatever it was doing to light up the screen with a full color display sharper, brighter and more bold than any tv or computer I've ever seen.

 

On the screen are a number of square characters/symbols and when I accidentally brush my hand across the screen, the symbols disappear and on the screen appears a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey.  My god, what is this I thought?  A movie player - but it couldn't be because it could no way ever hold a VHS cassette.  And it wasn't connected to any cables or jacks, so it couldn't just be a new fangled thin tv.  Frightened, and a little excited, I push the button on frame again and the movie stops and the screen goes back to showing all the symbols.

 

I was so flustered, I woke up and wrote down all these details, including a pencil drawing of what I saw in the dream.  I notarized the drawing, just in case something like this ever was produced, so I could show people and prove I had some crazy future dream.  Little did I ever expect to be in the position I am with proof positive that my dream IS the prior art that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Apple was not the first to create a tablet computer with the design that has now become ubiquitous with tablet computing.  I'm even a little dizzy with excitement now just thinking about being put on the stand to prove out Apple should have their iPad design patent pulled.  Gosh, all that from a crazy dream.  Who'd a thunk?

 

Uh-huh. Right.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

It's impossible for a human to be 100% unbiased. 

 

Sure, but some people actually make an honest, concerted effort to be objective and see things from all sides, considering all factors and variables before coming up with an opinion/judgement. There are others who don't bother going through this process and base their opinion on irrational, non-factual elements, and distort reality to fit their own preconceived notions of who's good and who's bad. It seems to be anyone still defending Samsung at this point fall into the latter category, people who despise Apple so much/love Samsung so much that they're unwilling to objectively assess their arguments, their claims, and their behavior, mindlessly cheering on the garbage they're spouting now. 

post #56 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmantle View Post

Space Odyssey is a great film, especially the part with the guy reading the instructions on how to use the toilet in space.  Somehow seems appropriate.

 

Saw it last night for the first time and yes that scene is amusing. Ten steps of instructions in a miniscule font. Samsung design for sure.

post #57 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

Maybe the dream was influenced by 70s/80s Star Trek. Anyone can play that game.

So did you create this tablet? If not, the dream doesn't have any practical value.

No, my dream was the inspiration for the detailed drawings I created, albeit in pencil, that clearly show a tablet very similar to what became the iPad. Therefor I do indeed have prior art for the design and even some functionality on the os given my notes about the symbols onscreen and video playback capability.

I'm feeling pretty secure about this now and look forward to my day in front of the judge. Apple is going to look so bad.
post #58 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

At least if they're biased (and regarding MS they may be) it's out of their beliefs and not because they're paid to be. Not all patent bloggers can say that. ;)

You loved FOSS until he started to say things that you didn't agree with. We all remember that.

"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 #59 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

What if new evidence is discovered in the middle of a trial?  It cannot be considered?  

Moot question at this point since the stuff Samsung tried to submit was public info that has been around the blogs for a while so theres no reason they woukdn't have found it in time

And with this 2001 thing, what's in movies and tv is rarely to never allowed as 'prior art' since its fake. Dissing a prototype only to return to it after someone else did it particularlyaftergetting a design patent can still be a legal no no even if the patenting company got the concept from a movie

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 #60 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Not a lawyer but my dad was.  Basically courtroom dramas are mostly crap.   Surprise evidence has to be presented to the judge, a DAMN good case made for it to be entered and then the opposing side is also allowed time to review it, usually delaying the trial at least a couple of days.  They had over a year to come up w/this stuff, it was late, tough for Samsung.

Bingo. There was no reason for them to wait until after the jury selection to submit this and the judge slapped them on it.

And then they went and played this media game implying they plays by the rules and the mean Apple fanboi judge was wrong to say no etc

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 #61 of 111

So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court.  It is simple not fair.  Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.

 

Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple.  Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent.  Hilarious. 

post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court.  It is simple not fair.  Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.

 

Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple.  Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent.  Hilarious. 

 

You have to be kidding, or trolling.

 

Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.

 

Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.

post #63 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1000
"Samsung tries to invalidate Apple's localization patents"

 

Next up -- the "retina display" at Lascaux:

 

700

post #64 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

You have to be kidding, or trolling.

 

Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.

 

Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.

 

If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?

post #65 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Samsung just gets more and more ridiculous. I can't wait for the Samsungistas to argue how this is proof that Apple hasn't created anything and how the Judge is biased.

Seriously f'n weak. Samsung is paying their lawyers $821 an hour to scrape the Internet forums and collect troll arguments to present in court. First "Apple don't own rectangles" then "Apple's fake Sony design sketch proves it steals from Sony, even though it doesn't" and now "2001: A Space Odyssey = prior art."

I guess they are counting on a dumb jury.
Edited by Suddenly Newton - 8/2/12 at 8:18pm

"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 #66 of 111

What a pathetic company, with its pathetic bunch of spokespeople like DaHarder, Gatorguy, JerrySwitched!

 

Whatever makes them happy, I guess. Ugh.

post #67 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

The facts have a pro-Apple bias. 

 

*shrugs*

That just about says it all.

post #68 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
Hilarious. 

Glad this is giving you a good laugh!  

 

Join in!!lol.gif

post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Glad this is giving you a good laugh!  

 

Join in!!lol.gif

 

Why not, it is better than the Olympic. Hahaha.  

post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?

Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.

Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.
"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 #71 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.
Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.

 

You do not have to wait me replying you.  If you can not see that yourself, then I do not have anything to show you since, I think, you are blind.

post #72 of 111

I examined the movie 2001 space odyssey and never during the time when the two actors are looking at the mentioned pad like device did they use a stylus or touch the screen to control the unit.  Also there was no indicator of any such logo indicating a ownership to design such as RCA Magnavox or Zenith who were huge in the television age at that time.

 

Samsung is grasping at straws to try and delay so they can sell their units during this whole proceeding.

 

I think maybe we could look at this from an automobile perspective.

 

Henry Ford made the first mass produced automobile.  He made automobiles before the Model T but the Model T changed the whole concept of what an Automobile was.  The Cell Phone was around long before the iPhone existed.  But the iPhone changed the whole concept of what a cell phone was (smart phone) and what it could do.  Apple was that company to change the whole concept of a cell phone and its capabilities.  Yet Samsung argues that Apple stole the design of the iPad.  Yet the iPad is basically a large iPhone.  Tablets were around before the iPad.  But Apple revolutionized the pad by designing the iPad.  Same thing as the Henry Ford Model T.  Apple should not be penalized for being able to create a better pad or cell phone.  If Samsung complains then thats their problem.  Samsung needs to be original and make a product that is revolutionizing to an industry.  Thats what they did with the LCD TV and LED TV.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #73 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?

 

How would it be crucial?

The judge is doing Samsung a favor by forcing them to exclude their weakest arguments. Noli equi dentes inspicere donati.

"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 #74 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

You do not have to wait me replying you.  If you can not see that yourself, then I do not have anything to show you since, I think, you are blind.

So you don't have any evidence or rational arguments.

Figures.
"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 #75 of 111

I get a kick out of the idea that Samsung's layers are so brazen/amoral/stupid as to pretend that a special effect for a movie can even be considered as "prior art." By definition prior art has to be evidence of the existence of an actual invention (or design—this case is so screwed, it's hard to tell what they think the 2001 Space Odyssey indicates prior art of.) In any case prior art along these lines would have to be a record of a working prototype, or a detailed description of the design or invention (akin to a patent document.)

A scene from 2001 Space Odyssey could never meet the standard of "prior art" for any of the patents Apple feels has been infringed. It could be used as prior art if someone simply tried to patent the idea of a tablet computer or a flat display, but that's about it.

post #76 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

I'm a friggin spokesperson for Samsung now?

Actually, you're worse.

 

But let's leave it as is.

post #77 of 111
Gee.

I suppose Apple could just drop the bomb and reveal the NEWTON in court. Grid style launch screen. Check. Dock at bottom. Check.
Rectangular. Check. Touch input. Check.

Samsung looking for anything that is rectangular with a screen now? Shameless.

Samsung sure seems to be so obsessed with trying to find problems with apples originality that they are leaving themselves open for the big question:

Where is yours?

NO mockups. Design exercizes. Etc.

Just more and more of Apple.

And then Samsung "leaks" items to the press? Especially after it was proven erroneous?

Wow. No respect for that.

I have a Samsung HDTV in my house.

It will be the last Samsung device I buy.

They need to shape up.
post #78 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

 

If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?

 

Crucial Evidence? Huh? The F-700, the phone with the slide out physical keyboard (which was shown at an angle to make the keyboard invisible), and the launcher/UI that looked absolutely NOTHING like the iPhone or their current phones (again, shown with the screen off so nobody could asess this)- this is the phone that Samsung claims '"would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design"- a phone that was designed before the iPhone announcement, that Samsung wants us to believe is similar to the iPhone, but actually has absolutely NOTHING in common, either in hardware, or software, with the iPhone, except being black and having a screen. To the contrary, it proves how drastically SAmsung's phones changed from this phone after the iPhone was released.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:

 

700

 

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/heres-the-phone-samsung-insists-the-apple-jury-must-see/

 

Howbout a video? Sure. Dated March 15, 2007, 2 months after the iPhone reveal. The phone barely works.

 

http://youtu.be/wMuC0vDNlQo

 

From TheVerge:

 

Quote:
"In many ways," Patel writes, "the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose to drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style."

 

Is someone seriously going to argue similarity to the iPhone, even conceptually? It was INTRODUCED 2 months after the iPhone.  If anything,  it shows how far behind Samsung was, and the radical, drastic change of course they later implemented. It would have fit right in on that slide with those other phones where SJ was making the argument that a new paradigm for a phone needs to emerge. This would have been laughed out of court, and absolutely destroyed by Apple if they were given an official channel to respond inside the courtroom, and actually present the phone fully to the jury.  Samsung knows this, so they create this charade, and leak this 'smoking gun' (which is anything but) to the media, and whine about how unfair it is that this 'evidence' is being excluded, in order to pollute the proceedings and sway those who are to ignorant to actually look into the phone further. If anything, that phone strengthens Apple's argument, yet Samsung is playing a game of PR to make people think it's some critical evidence that would win them the case. Its become clear how weak Samsung's case, and defense is, if this joke of 'evidence' is indeed what they've decided to play up. I've read all their statements/arguments that have been made public, and I fail to see how an objective individual can deny that Samsung is trying its best to pollute and distort the facts with irrelevant, false, and laughable claims. The 2001 Space Odysey 'prior art' is icing on their pathetic little cake. 


Edited by Slurpy - 8/3/12 at 12:13am
post #79 of 111

In addition to Slurpy, again this link:

 

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

"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 #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

The F-700, the phone with the slide out physical keyboard (which was shown at an angle to make the keyboard invisible), and the launcher/UI that looked absolutely NOTHING like the iPhone or their current phones (again, shown with the screen off so nobody could asess this)- this is the phone that Samsung claims '"would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design"
- a phone that was designed before the iPhone announcement, that Samsung wants us to believe is similar to the iPhone, but actually has absolutely NOTHING in common, either in hardware, or software, with the iPhone, except being black and having a screen. To the contrary, it proves how drastically SAmsung's phones changed from this phone after the iPhone was released.

Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:

[...]

I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments