or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures' - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

[ridiculous nonsense slandering the jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung]

 

What we are seeing here are the new talking points for Samsung shills. Shameless, yes, but they said they'd stop at nothing.

post #42 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?
Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You are wrong, again. They did what you described (making information public), but they also brought witnesses into the court room (while the room was empty) in direct violation of the court's orders.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/samsung_shows_courtroom_to_witnesses_breaks_court_rules/
Then tell us the exact words where he claims to be an expert witness and cite a reference.
More importantly, show us the exact words where he did the following as you claimed:
"When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."
I'm not interested in your interpretation, I want to see the exact words where he substituted his knowledge/expertise for the judge's instructions and where he used is knowledge/expertise to substitute for the testimony and evidence presented in the trial.


"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."

Samsung got what it deserved.  What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.

post #43 of 73

Exactly, dump Samsung stock and turn around and buy Apple stock -- if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

post #44 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

 

It no longer makes a difference. 

 

It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area. 

 

Just accept it. 

You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one. 

post #45 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

 

 


"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."

Samsung got what it deserved.  What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.

Go read for yourself. 

post #46 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Samsung will combat Apple's attempt to ban the sales of eight smartphones with "all necessary measures," the company said in a statement issued to The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. Among the options available to Samsung are filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the injunction is granted by Judge Lucy Koh, and modifying its products to circumvent any bans.

 

it seems the quickest means to prevent the ban is to remove the feature(s) the jury found to be infringing on Apple's patents.  appeals can take months or years to work through the courts.

post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one. 

So is round 2 the one where you provide the evidence to support your claims attacking the jury foreman? I'll be waiting.
"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 #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one. 

You are clueless, since If Samsung gets the decision reduced, it's a pretty bad reflection on Samsng's integrity and business practices. Everyone knows, it's always best to win the first round !
post #49 of 73

This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.

But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.

post #50 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So is round 2 the one where you provide the evidence to support your claims attacking the jury foreman? I'll be waiting.

For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?

post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 

 

Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely. 

 

A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team. 

 

If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.

post #52 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?

How can I? You refuse to tell me what words you're referring to. I certainly can't find anything that backs up your claims.

Just to remind you - since you don't seem to be able to follow an argument... you said: "When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."

So what are his exact words where he substituted his own expertise for the witnesses and evidence presented in the trial and where did he substitute his own expertise for the instructions of the court?

And keep in mind - the jury verdict was reached quickly which is a pretty strong sign (confirmed by all the jury interviews after the fact) that they jury was absolutely convinced that Samsung was guilty. No one had to twist their arms.

So, again, is Round 2 when you're going to provide evidence to back up your claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely. 

A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team. 

If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.

Exactly. It's one thing to convince an appeals court that a judge erred. Samsung MIGHT have some success in arguing that evidence was improperly rejected or the jury instructions were improper (although it looks like Koh bent over backwards to ignore Samsung's legal shenanigans). Those things are matters of law. OTOH, their chances are pretty slim that they will convince an appeals court that the jury erred because of bias or any other reason.
"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 #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?

LOL is this dude a joke?  

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #54 of 73
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?

It never ceases to amaze me how pointless and shrill you Samsung shills are.

Please give up. Your company already looks pretty bad without the likes of you having to exacerbate it.
post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 


To further address your nonsense, there was a jury selection process. These jurors were screened and agreed to by both Apple and Samsung. All part of procedure. 

post #56 of 73

Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals.  They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts.  Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder.  Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado... 

 

Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?

 

They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer.  Their real problem is with Google.

 

who is directing all this Samsung?

post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayMan View Post

Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals.  They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts.  Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder.  Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado... 

Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?

They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer.  Their real problem is with Google.

who is directing all this Samsung?

Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea. lol.gif

BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?
"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 #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea. lol.gif
BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?

 

Could be same people, alt accounts.  *shrugs*

 

Then again, there's no shortage of them over at MacRumors. Too funny. It's an Apple-centric website, and they go there to troll.  *doesn't make sense.*

post #59 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?

Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."

So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?
"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 #60 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."
So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?

 

Because Apple's continued success, their cockiness, their foresight, the way they humiliate their competitors and then teabag them in Consumer Satisfaction, their devotion to a closed ecosystem, their shrewdness, their obsession with detail and control, their devotion to making tech easy, usable, and less complex for Joe Average (read: can't tinker, sorry IT crowd), and their insistence on protecting what's rightfully theirs . . . drives him absolutely batshit crazy. 

 

And it warms my heart to see that. 

post #61 of 73
BTW, as further evidence that Samsung never learned its lessons from this legal slap-down:

http://www.ijailbreak.com/news/samsung-windows-8-s-launcher-os-x-dock/
"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 #62 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Go read for yourself. 

RAAAAGGGEEEEE lol

 

poor little angry troll is angry....

post #63 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

LOL is this dude a joke?  


Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.

 

You, sir, are a fool.

post #64 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.

 

I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)

 

Cheers

 

So if you lose a case, attack the jury. You're saying bias = knowing something about patents?

"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 #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post


Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.

You, sir, are a fool.

So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?

Are we still waiting for round 2?


Man, the trolls get worse every day. I guess all the trolls with any intelligence at all knew that they had to go into hiding after the jury decision, so now we're left with nothing better than RBR.
"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 #66 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post


Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.

 

You, sir, are a fool.

Want to show some reference as what to read. Calm down Sally. Just put a link and cite your source please. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?
Are we still waiting for round 2?

 

In the Bloomberg interview, the foreman stated:

 

"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

 

The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.

 

If you are interested in reading more, Groklaw has a thorough analysis at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

post #68 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

In the Bloomberg interview, the foreman stated:

"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.

If you are interested in reading more, Groklaw has a thorough analysis at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

That is, of course, nonsense for many reasons:

1. The statement doesn't indicate any bias.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.

For a less hysterical discussion, try this:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/835091-apple-s-verdict-will-likely-survive-appeal?
"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 #69 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That is, of course, nonsense for many reasons:
1. The statement doesn't indicate any bias.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.
For a less hysterical discussion, try this:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/835091-apple-s-verdict-will-likely-survive-appeal?

1) I never said the foreman was biased. You are putting words into my mouth. I was responding to your comment of "tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions?" He clearly substituted his understanding of valid prior art with what was was instructed to him.

 

2) I completely disagree with this statement. Just because the foreman THINKS he accurately followed instructions doesn't mean he actually did. I'm sure the foreman truly thought he was doing the right thing, but people make mistakes. Unfortunately, in this situation, it appears to be a very egregious one.

 

3) This was not a trial of a simple guilty or not-guilty charge. This case REQUIRED massive analysis regardless of how one-sided it was.

 

4) Please substantiate your claim that Groklaw has an "intense hatred of Apple". If you don't like Groklaw's assessment, there are plenty more analyst saying the same thing. http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis. Regarding your "error of law" vs "error of fact" statement, how is a jury not following instuctions from the judge an "error of fact"???

 

5) Again, how are you missing the fact that the foreman is replacing his understanding of "valid prior art" with what was instructed to the jury?

 

Why are you citing an article that starts with the self-proclaimed caveat of "I'm a business lawyer, not a patent lawyer."? Both the links I have now provided are from exactly those...patent lawyers....

post #70 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.

 

Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?

 

"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."

 

Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?

post #71 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?

"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."

Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?

That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."

And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.

There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.
"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 #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.
There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.

 

Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.

 

That isn't to say that HAD the jury compared the patent claims to the evidence that they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. They very well may have. However, they did not follow the jury instructions and have left the verdict susceptible to appeal.

post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.

And, once again, you're taking one line out of context and making all sorts of assumptions. The foreman said specifically that they compared every single claim against the judge's instructions for those claims.

In the end, juries have an enormous amount of discretion. It is extremely unlikely that Samsung is going to get a reversal based on the jury's decisions of fact.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'