or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u] - Page 3

post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

 

 

It isn't odd. She asked the parties to file their arguments. Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions. Samsung has a chance to respond. It now has. The judge will review the parties arguments, and make a ruling. 

post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Their chargers and cables look almost identical. .

For fun one day we should comb through the site and see if we can match users to two kinds of posts. Posts claiming Samsung doesn't copy at all and posts complaining that Apple does not use a standard connector like micro-USB. I think we would see a lot of overlap between those two groups. It would be fascinating.
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

EXCELLENT article. The author captures the essence of Microsoft very well.
The patent you are referring to is a design patent. It doesn't need to have more than a 'simple drawing with a brief description'.
And, yes, Samsung is free to bring up real prior art. Science fiction is not prior art - that's why it's called 'fiction'. More importantly, the 2001 slate is nothing like the iPad, anyway.
Well, fortunately, that's not what Apple is claiming. Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.
Nice job missing the entire point. Look at Samsung's exhibits. They have produced multiple prototypes that look very different from an iPhone. The Galaxy SIII doesn't look much like an iPhone. Their new packaging doesn't look much like Apple's packaging. Yet initially, out of all those prototypes and all the possible packaging designs, they chose the phone that looks almost identical to the iPhone. Their packaging (for the Tab, in particular) looks very much like the iPad. Their chargers and cables look almost identical. It is clear from Samsung's own exhibits that there were designs that would not have been slavish copies - yet Samsung chose none of them. Instead, they deliberately chose the one that is closest in appearance to Apple's. Why is that?
Furthermore, it ignores all the functional patents that are involved - where, again, Samsung deliberately copied key, patented features from the iPhone.

You know, to those of us that remember the rise of Japan as a manufacturing giant in the 60's and 70's this is all very déjà vu. Many products from America and Europe were slavishly copied and back then they even had the nerve to use the same names with tiny changes to deceive buyers such as lighters by R.onson (the period after the R). It is great to see this time around someone not standing for it.
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 #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Remember OJ Simpson! :-)

OJ Simpson was one of the few cases where I think the jury got it right. I thought he did it, but the prosecution did a horrible job. It mishandled evidence. It showed pictures that claimed to be an untouched crime scene, only to have other pictures also comporting to be an untouched crime scene that showed items not in the other photos. Plus the officers investigating the case were caught lying on the stand. THere were numerous other errors as well. 

 

The result here should be similar. Samsung keeps screwing up. It deserves to lose. 

post #85 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


It isn't odd. She asked the parties to file their arguments. Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions. Samsung has a chance to respond. It now has. The judge will review the parties arguments, and make a ruling. 

Exactly - and probably very soon since the trial resumes today.

Given that Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times in this trial (according to Foss Patents) and the fact that they've ignored orders from at least 2 different judges, I can't imagine that her patience is going to hold out much longer. I would anticipate a fairly severe penalty, but probably not as severe as Apple asked for.

My guess would be jury instructions which go something like this:
"You were asked not to read anything about this case in the press and to limit your access to this case to activities that occur in this courtroom. The reason for that is that my role as a judge is to enforce standards of evidence to ensure that you are only receiving information which is allowed under our legal system which is designed to ensure justice and fair representation to both sides. Evidence must meet standards of acceptability before it can be presented and the opposing side then has the opportunity to respond. In this case, Samsung has violated that rule and responsibility and has made an attempt to influence the case outside of the courtroom by presenting some documents that were deemed not admissible as they did not meet the standards of admissible evidence. Since these documents were rejected as inadmissible when Samsung tried four times to get me to allow them, you are directed to ignore anything that you have seen or heard about the case outside of this court room. Further, you are free to consider whether Samsung's attempts to violate the legal due process that exists in this country to ensure fairness is an indication that they have no respect for this court or for you as the jury. You are also free to consider whether their attempts to go outside the system is based on a belief that their case is so weak that they can not rely on this court's justice as administered by you, the jurors."

Now, some of the wording probably needs to be changed, but that would get the essence of the message across. It's not as severe as Apple's approach which would simply find Samsung guilty because of this breach, but it would be an appropriate response.
"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 #86 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

For fun one day we should comb through the site and see if we can match users to two kinds of posts. Posts claiming Samsung doesn't copy at all and posts complaining that Apple does not use a standard connector like micro-USB. I think we would see a lot of overlap between those two groups. It would be fascinating.

Right. I'd bet they are either paid to post crap on our blogs or are sitting at a PC they built themselves and do it out of some weird hatred of all things Apple.

One change I am seeing in the latter group is they are now splitting into two factions. One running windows still the other, hackintosh machines. The Apple hate is firmly from the first group for sure. These guys are forced to love Android and what ever company is leading in that field at any given time (HTC anyone?) simply to cling on to their position.

I have hope for the hackintosh folks / smile.
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 #87 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Whether the judge rules left or right or in-between, it still doesn't fix Android; it still doesn't help the also-rans sell their bad tablets; it still won't save Nokia; it still won't prevent a blowout holiday quarter for Apple; it still won't help the industry's enormous laziness and lack of imagination; if there's an "Apple TV" in the works, it still won't save the old guard electronics makers; and it won't help Microsoft's Surface look like something more than an answer to a question no one asked.  

The trolls here forget that Joe Average doesn't care how the judge rules. They just want the best gear money can buy, and they're willing to line up for it and pay big money for it. And it's most of it's sporting an Apple logo.

Exactly, which is why the Samsung Galaxy S3 is raking in money for Samsung worldwide right now. People walk into a store and see a tiny, 3.5" screen, with way too much bezel, a glass back (seriously??) that will break anytime the phone is dropped, with nothing but rows of icons covering the entire homescreen, and then they see a big, beautiful, Super AMOLED HD screen, on a thinner device, with beautiful homescreens with beautiful, real-time widgets, and the choice is easy. Keep buying your iPhones thinking they are the "top tech" just because they are made by Apple. Those of us with a brain will actually do research and buy the superior product. And for those of you that think the Galaxy S3 is somehow "inspired" by Apple's designs, put the two phones side by side again, do a double take, and if you still think they look alike, get your head checked.
post #88 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 

Why is it I can look at the HTC One S and see it is a clearly different phone than any iPhone?  Or the Droid Razr?  Or the Evo?  Or the Palm Pre?  Why aren't these guys getting sued for these handsets despite rounded corners, etc?

 

Why is it only the Samsung handsets being objected to are ones clearly designed to look like the iPhone?

 

"According to the USPTO, “the design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features.”"

 

That's a quote from your article.  Don't tell me that the appearance of the iPhone is not distinctive and that is exactly what Apple is protecting with design patents.  All of these other phones are also ergonomic, not bumpy, not thick and fit perfectly well in pants.
 

If Apple was suing EVERY company with rounded corners, clean face, etc then I would be inclined to state that Apple was abusing their design patents and the patent system was broken.  In THIS case any normal person would look at the hordes of Android phones and pick out those Samsung handsets and think "Wow...that's a pretty blatant copy of the iPhone".

 

And any site claiming to be concerned about patents and not giving Google grief for using FRAND patents offensively is obviously biased.

 

Design patents protect ornamental design - if its fucntional or structural it does not come under a design patent - pure and simple.

 

Apple is going after Samsung simply because its its biggest competitor. That doesn't mean they won't go after others.

post #89 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


EXCELLENT article. The author captures the essence of Microsoft very well.
The patent you are referring to is a design patent. It doesn't need to have more than a 'simple drawing with a brief description'.
And, yes, Samsung is free to bring up real prior art. Science fiction is not prior art - that's why it's called 'fiction'. More importantly, the 2001 slate is nothing like the iPad, anyway.
Well, fortunately, that's not what Apple is claiming. Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.
Nice job missing the entire point. Look at Samsung's exhibits. They have produced multiple prototypes that look very different from an iPhone. The Galaxy SIII doesn't look much like an iPhone. Their new packaging doesn't look much like Apple's packaging. Yet initially, out of all those prototypes and all the possible packaging designs, they chose the phone that looks almost identical to the iPhone. Their packaging (for the Tab, in particular) looks very much like the iPad. Their chargers and cables look almost identical. It is clear from Samsung's own exhibits that there were designs that would not have been slavish copies - yet Samsung chose none of them. Instead, they deliberately chose the one that is closest in appearance to Apple's. Why is that?
Furthermore, it ignores all the functional patents that are involved - where, again, Samsung deliberately copied key, patented features from the iPhone.

Namecalling. Well Done.

 

The point that the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad which has resulted in their absurd testimony where functional aspects like rounded corners are purely for ornamental purposes.

 

But what is the practical aspect of all this. Are arguing is that an average person - say a member of the jury cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when they both have their logos printed on them, have different profiles. So you are saying that a person who goes to buy an Iphone will get duped into buying a Samsung product?

post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

Not really. It's common to wait until the next day they are in court anyway, hand down a slap in the first few minutes, tell the jury anything they need to be told on record and then carry on with the rest

Not to mention once Apple filed their motion, they have to give Samsung to respond or that could become cause for an appeal. Sure Samsung is going to Apple's any slap they get. Will file if the issue goes on record with the jury etc. But procedural missteps like not being allowed even a day to file a response, especially to something as big as a motion for summary judgement, that's almost always a guaranteed win. No way is a judge going to risk it. Not when they can wait a couple of days to let everyone file their say and deal with it on Monday without a major affect on the trial since its still way early on

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 #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

No taking BS games from a company isn't bias, it's doing her job.

Find where she's not judging the same against Apple for identical games, has 100 shares of Apple stock, etc then you have cause to suggest she is very possibly biased,

But right now the only bias that seems to be evident is yours

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 #92 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.

Despite the poor writing in the original article, no she didn't. Koh hadn't made any final ruling. She said Quinn had good cause to file his motion that Apples request was too extreme. Basically she's allowing him to make a counter argument that if Samsung is found to be in the wrong the requested summary judgement shouldn't be made. She wasn't likely too anyway since she'd be giving them cause to appeal.

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 #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

AI has now updated the story to reflect that tiny little subtlety.

It's hardly a liitle subtlety. The article claimed a judgement had been made on something that hasn't even been heard yet. That is a huge mis write.

I know that AI is 'just a blog' not a newspaper but such sloppiness is really much. Particularly when this site gets quoted and referenced as if they know and verified what they are talking about

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 #94 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kankerot View Post

Namecalling. Well Done.

Really? What name calling are you referring to? I simply stated that you missed the point - and explained why. That's the exact opposite of name calling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kankerot View Post

The point that the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad which has resulted in their absurd testimony where functional aspects like rounded corners are purely for ornamental purposes.

But what is the practical aspect of all this. Are arguing is that an average person - say a member of the jury cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when they both have their logos printed on them, have different profiles. So you are saying that a person who goes to buy an Iphone will get duped into buying a Samsung product?

How have you been, Rip Van Winkle? (There's some name calling for you). You've obviously been asleep for months.

1. Samsung's own testimony says that the #1 reason for their product returns at Best Buy were due to customers thinking that they were buying an iPad. That's fact - not my opinion (or yours).

2. Samsung's own attorneys were unable to tell the difference between the two products when asked by a judge to do so.

The evidence is quite clear that Samsung's products DO cause confusion.
"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 #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.

Different countries, different laws. You can't really mix and match them since the jurisdictions generally don't cross over. That's why multiple suits are filed, 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 #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Now, some of the wording probably needs to be changed, but that would get the essence of the message across. It's not as severe as Apple's approach which would simply find Samsung guilty because of this breach, but it would be an appropriate response.

I suspect that the end result, with a contempt fine perhaps, will be basically as you suggest.

The judge might not even need to add the weakness bit as it has already been suggested to the jury and they are hopefully smart enough to go there on their own without an on record statement Samsung will try to use to get an appeal if they lose

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 #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Can I ask why you don't seem to take any issue when it goes the other way? I mean it's not like terms like "fandroid" or "Micro$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?

1) I also can't stand Micro$oft ,Windoze, Samesung, or any such common variation.

2) I do like Fandroid. It's simple and within itself contain no derogatory statement. It's oft used in a derogatory way usage is different than the issue I. I group it more wit the term iDevice which is just a simple way to refer to the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad, in most cases. Can you make a case that no fan of Android would be mind be referred to as a fan of Android? I cant.

3) I use troll but it's a well know term on the internet with a well know meaning. We do have to use words with meaning in order to communicate, right? BTW, troll is used for anyone across the internet and has no definition that refers specifically to anyone who is against Apple.

4) I don't care for the comments Apple ][ often makes on this forum and have never hid that fact. He's the poster I've put on ignore more than anyone else over the years. Not so much for his extreme bias in favor of anything Apple but for other biases he has.

5) If you want to imply I'm biased then you have to argue as to why I included ANALyst in my original comment when that is used on this forum when ever an analyst says Apple will falter in any way.

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
post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

AI has now updated the story to reflect that tiny little subtlety.

It's hardly a liitle subtlety. The article claimed a judgement had been made on something that hasn't even been heard yet. That is a huge mis write.

I know that AI is 'just a blog' not a newspaper but such sloppiness is really much. Particularly when this site gets quoted and referenced as if they know and verified what they are talking about

See - now I'm in trouble for not using an irony designator. Yes - I agree - it is really a huge distinction.
post #99 of 106

As a final update, Koh denies Apple's request for sanctions.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-03/samsung-defeats-apple-bid-for-sanctions-over-evidence

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #100 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As a final update, Koh denies Apple's request for sanctions.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-03/samsung-defeats-apple-bid-for-sanctions-over-evidence

It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.

However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.
"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 #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.
However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.

According to news reports she polled the jurors to see if any of them had read or heard or read about it. None had, altho one single juror said she had glanced at a headline that might have referred to it, but didn't read the article as she knew she wasn't supposed to. So there was no "tainting".  Nice to see that at least the jurors follow the judge's instructions even if the litigants may appear not to.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #102 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Really? What name calling are you referring to? I simply stated that you missed the point - and explained why. That's the exact opposite of name calling.
How have you been, Rip Van Winkle? (There's some name calling for you). You've obviously been asleep for months.
1. Samsung's own testimony says that the #1 reason for their product returns at Best Buy were due to customers thinking that they were buying an iPad. That's fact - not my opinion (or yours).
2. Samsung's own attorneys were unable to tell the difference between the two products when asked by a judge to do so.
The evidence is quite clear that Samsung's products DO cause confusion.

 

Read your post again - post 80.

 

Rip Van Winkle - another sad attempt at humour? 

 

Point 1 - have you got a reference for this. 

Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which. 

 

That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.

 

Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents. 

post #103 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kankerot View Post

Read your post again - post 80.

Rip Van Winkle - another sad attempt at humour? 

Point 1 - have you got a reference for this. 
Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which. 

That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.

Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents. 

Give me a break.

Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.
"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 #104 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

Trying to submit devices featured in science-fiction movies as evidence?

 

 

700

 

 

http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue-2001-a-space-odyssey-renders-apple-patents-invalid/

 

I dunno, seems like a bit of a reach to me.

 

I sometimes wish it was admitted as evidence.

It would have made the jury chuckle at Samsung's desperation to prove that Apple is a copyist.

"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 #105 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Give me a break.
Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.

 

The Best Buy evidence is questionalble - how was it collected and what questions were asked. There are multiple reasons people will claim to justify a return. What effect does a salesman have in the decision etc.

 

As I pointed out before being able to tell the difference from a distance you would never make a decision from in any practical sense proves nothing other than it being a stunt.

 

What statment did I say it was flat out wrong. You are making a straw argument.

 

As I pointed out how you can say flat surfaces, rounded corners etc are purely ornamental is just absurd.

 

Also as to the point of confusion - then it can also run in favour of Apple where someone wanted to buy a Samsung Tablet but then ended up buying an Ipad. If the confusion is so great - when do people realise they have bought the wrong product and if they have realised that then they have the option of a return, so there is a remedy.

post #106 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
The patent you are referring to is a design patent. It doesn't need to have more than a 'simple drawing with a brief description'.

Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.

Jr, I'm curious how you would describe in words what Apple is claiming in this design patent asserted against Samsung smartphones.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf

Be sure to note that Apple says in the application that anything drawn with dotted lines is not part of the claimed design, and instead for "illustrative purposes only" 

 

If anyone else wants to take a shot at describing what Apple has laid claim to, I'd like to see what your understanding of it is.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]