Judge says 'it's time for peace,' asks Apple and Samsung CEOs to discuss settlement - Page 2

 

What predominant view? That of this forum? Samsung has done a pretty impressive job continually throwing shit at the wall and confusing everyone over what this trial is about and who has violated what. I'm sure most people who aren't looking at Samsung's ridiculous claims closely are pretty confused as to who's in the right. 

Amen. To criticize her without being present for the proceedings is not only silly, disrespectful but down right ignorant.

 

We only hear bits and pieces, and biased ones at that. If we must formulate a opinion based on these fragments, I'd say neither side has presented a coherent case.

I am a little concerned this might not go Apple's way. It is obvious to all but the stupid which way it SHOULD go.
But sometimes juries are stupid.

If it goes the wrong way, remember this. . .

Steve's greatest triumphs were OSX and iOS.

Samsung's touchwiz is just a poor copy skin over a poor copy of iOS.

They actually have nothing. Samsung have given up competing for tablet space, because no matter how good their hardware is, Android drags them down.
They have written Android 'plug-ins' that approximate iOS functionality but Android drags them down.

Android will not be able to compete in the long term. It is a sinking ship.
And they won't have Apple paying them millions for their hardware.

BUT, they might have Steve Ballmers Windows 8.

Good luck Samsung.
Edited by amoradala - 8/15/12 at 4:52pm

 

I wish more of your posts were like this, and less of the other irritating stuff. 

Edited by Slurpy - 8/15/12 at 4:53pm

If we'd go on a Troll Crusade, I imagine there wouldn't be much of the other stuff left. 

Nearly every case gets appealed until it is exhausted. This verdict will be appealed. Everyone knows it. It'll have little bearing on her political future.  If she were to make huge mistakes in applying the law or getting involved in controversial issues, it'll have an effect on her future.

Seems to me Judge Koh is in danger of becoming yet another victim of Apple's scorched earth like policy.

Apple will sue BB10 beause "look and feel" are similar

 

NO. NO "PEACE."

 

It is time to see the process through to a JUDGMENT. Everyone putting their cards on the table, history made. Hopefully, precedent set. 

 

Regardless of what this ruling does to one or both companies, this process *needs* to happen. 

 

So, your contention is that Samsung already had these ideas because their teams reported thinking of them in the latter half of 2006, barely ahead of an actual completed product introduced in January 2007 and sold in June 2007? (which Jobs said he had been waiting to introduce for 2 1/2 years at that time)

 

If anything, your illustrations show that a company (Samsung), working on a phone, altered its design and features ideas about the time they might have become privy to details of Apple's impending finished product...uh, that's copying.  

 

You seem not to have presented "any evidence that might work against Apple".

 

When did they receive contracts for Apple components?  Might that have contributed to these supposed ideas?

Someone out there who _isn't_ a troll must know...?

Agree :)

CC - it's a fan site man. They're ignoring you because you made a point in favor of Samsung.

 

 

 

 

Samsung is the alien.

The president is Jobs.

 

"Nuke 'em."

 

(the full scene that I wanted isn't up anywhere…)

 

That, and because he's a returning user previously banned.

Yeah, I've got a "settlement" for Samsung. They can take that laggy ass Android rubbish and shove it up...

I found it for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

i agree, its her job to make sure the trial is fair, not to get her name in the papers with this bull crap

 

Very unlikely,  IIRC, Toshiba and LG were the main suppliers of panels for the early generations of iPhone.  I don't think Samsung makes iPhone's display panel to this date - though Apple had to go beg Samsung for iPad 2 and the new iPad when LG (and Sharp) started having manufacturing problems.  

 

it really depends on what you are reading, though I have to agree tha MSM seems to favor Apple - obviously not even without hearing Samsung's defense/offense.   Try non-fanboy, anti-FUD sites like Groklaw.net, for instance.

You're finally getting it, man!

Duh.

Not only Apple.  Do other consumer electronics companies who buy components from Samsung want to take the risk that Samsung will produce copies of their inventions?

I guess Samsung can always sell to all the other copyists.  If Samsung prevails in this court case, there will be plenty more of them.

- - 

oops I think maybe SangSung and Apple will come to an agreement before Jury decision? Seems like Tim Cook really would want this

 

During this case she started as a "Samsung shill" if you remember her initial ruling not to allow Apple's requests for injunctions until it was overruled on appeal, now she is labelled an "Apple shill" simply because she has admonished Samsung's legal team over messes of THEIR own creation whether intentional or accidental.

 

This seems to indicate that overall she is doing a fairly good job at being impartial.

I dislike the added semantics. In your case you've suggested Apple was begging when they either did or did not have the manufacturing capacity. If they had it, contracts are always good when the customer is credit worthy. In the iphone, they were using LG displays as LG basically has the market cornered on IPS panels. They make virtually all of them in desktop displays. I don't care who it supports. The added semantics are dumb. It's just as stupid when people come up with variations on the names Samsung and Apple thinking they're clever. Whoever feels "Samesung" or "Crapple" are clever names should submit themselves for psychological evaluation.

 

Perhaps you should take it up with Samsung's legal team, after all they are the one's who f**ked up following the rules of admissible evidence.

Gucci makes a handbag for $1000. Some shady company from a land far, far away makes identical copies, form function, etc., & sells them at the swap meets for $30. Those are called knock-offs. People who shop the swap meets all the time love those things, & are outraged that the original designer would charge so much for a purse. Yet, they like to walk around saying they got a Gucci purse & feel really good about it. We all want to feel good about ourselves & our lives, & some justify the copying on many levels. They may say it's no big thing, but when the swap meet is raided & all off the knock off purses, jeans, tennis shoes, watches & jewelry are removed, they squawk big time. The same way bit torrent users squalk when a site is taken down & they can't get movies for free, or a vendor in the app store charges the outrageous fee of .99 for an app..."this should be free!". It's been my personal experience, that many of my friends who chose an Android phone did so because they felt they were getting a better phone for the money. Conversation reveals itnwasnbecausenthe phone was cheaper & there were many, many free apps. They may occasionally spout some of the 'official talking points,' such as open source,etc. but there is no depth to their understanding of the feature. It appears they all bought the Android phone because they were being cheap, basically wanting something for nothing.

It's my opinion, that the Samsung products are cheap knock-offs of the iPhone, & if allowed to continue to be sold should be sold at swap meets only. As a trusted producer of iPhone & IPad components, they stole the design, form fit feel & function of the Apple products & made a perfect marriage of their copied but trash items to the also trusted Google partner (member who sat on Apple's Board of Directors) who stole ideas & information to create not only the Android operating system, but now a phone as well.

For me, Samsung & Google are the sleaziest of back alley swap meet vendors, which is or should be, an embarrassment to all of the mom & pop swap meet vendors who work hard in the family business, declare & pay taxes, & live lives of honesty & integrity. To settle in court with these cloning crooks would be like settling with someone who has been sneaking into your house & repeatedly molesting your child.

 

i don't know the history of his postings (regardless of what username was used) so perhaps it was / is reasonable to ignore him.  that said, however, i don't see how anyone should ignore that particular news article from the Verge.  it details Samsung's stance on the 'bounce-back' patent.

I respectfully disagree. It's not about the OS alone. It's the Mac with the OS, and iPhone with iOS. Each system is a triumph, a masterpiece and a revolution.

 

I'd also put Pixar right up there.

A sales ban may be a win for Apple but it will be a loss for all of us.

 

Competition is what keeps companies on their toes coming up with new awesome stuff. Apple has borrowed ideas from Android, and vice versa. Both companies are supposedly infringing each other's patents. They should just cross-license and stop acting like bickering five year olds. And get back to work making great products.

I think her request that they try one last time to come to an agreement is sensible. If they don't, for one thing the jury award is unpredictable, but more importantly, the losing side will appeal.

 

And the appeals will go all the way to the Supreme Court if they can, and even without that, we are talking about years of litigation, at high cost to tax payers, and doubtful benefit to either party. An out of court settlement is best for the taxpayer, for sure, and that's who Koh ultimately works for.

 

You can say that Apple and Samsung already tried to negotiate. That's true, but that was before the trial. Now they've measured their respective force and can be more realistic about a deal. Samsung is in the weaker position, though it did land a punch or two, and they should be better able to understand this now.
 

 

to be fair it should be noted that all of us rely on second-hand / summary reporting of the court proceedings.  the lawyers, the judge and the jurors are privy to much more information than any of us do and/or will ever have on this case.

 

I agree!!!!

 

A sales ban on Samsung's dominant TouchWiz based Android phones, whether you believe them to be based on the iPhone or not, will give other Android OEM's a chance to gain lost ground, especially those who went their own way and were essentially ignored in the marketplace due to Samsung's excessively overhyped marketing.

 

That is how a setback for Samsung will be a win for us all, including Android supporters.

Actually, the messed up the entire trial. Sanctioned 4 times. Failure to get evidence admitted due to their own errors. Publicly releasing evidence that the judge had told them not to release. Destruction of evidence. Taking witnesses into the court room in violation of the judge's explicit orders.

I really hope the attorneys are severely sanctioned when this is all over.

That is nonsense. Competition is not stealing your competitor's IP. Competition is coming up with your own IP and trying to make it better than the competition. If Samsung was truly competing, they would come up with their own designs and try to beat Apple with better IP. By failing to do so, they are holding the industry back. The industry wins when EVERYONE is trying to innovate.

Equally important, what about the other Android manufacturers who have been harmed by Samsung's blatant theft of Apple's IP? They are being punished for innovating (such as Windows 7 Mobile and now Windows 8) by Samsung's misrepresentations and theft. If Samsung gets its way, the entire industry will switch to simply copying Apple's every move. How is that supposed to move the industry forward?

Clap...

Clap...

Clap... Clap... Clap...

Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap....Clap....

Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap.... Clap....

[room bursts into thunderous applause]

It's a bit worrying that she should say that, because the ultimate goal of a court proceeding is not to achieve peace, but to see that justice is done. And if Apple were wronged she shouldn't be encouraging them so hard to settle.

TheVerge ran an article today detailing some testimony from yesterday. Tho not a big deal if it happens and not affecting the overall suit that much,  Apple's bounce-back patent may end up being a casualty of this case and found invalid.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

I was under the impression any successful appeal of a jury's verdict can only come about as a result of an error in law made during the act of deciding which evidence to exclude from the jury's attention (either excluding evidence that should have been admitted, or presenting evidence that ought to have been excluded), or an error in law made in the instructions given to the jury about how to interpret the evidence in the context of relevant statutes and case precedence.

 

(Or corruption, such as proof of jury bribery etc.  I certainly hope no such activity took place in this case.)

 

Judge Koh is the final arbiter of both of those activities.

 

As long as it can be determined that no errors were made in the administration of these duties, the jury's decision generally stands no matter how it stacks up against the facts of the case.

 

A successful appeal of the jury's verdict, therefore, would automatically means that Koh must have made a mistake.

Edited by lfmorrison - 8/16/12 at 4:54am

That is correct. You can't appeal simply because you disagree with the decision. You must show a material (significant) error of law. That is, you must show that the judge erred in something relevant - admission of evidence, non-admission of evidence, interpretation of the law, etc.

The only problem with that argument is that there's nothing in that video that looks even remotely like pinch to zoom or bounce back.

As has been the case throughout this trial, Samsung is throwing irrelevant crap at the wall, apparently hoping to confuse the jury.