Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.

Every trial has a limitied amount of time and limited evidence that is allowed to be presented.  She's telling them they have a 5 pound bag and they better put their best 5 pounds in it because no way are they going to cram 10 in it.

System could not work if they allowed 'everything.'  Since our legal system generally runs on the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise, if you allowed the plaintiff unlimited accusations, you would also have to allow the defendent unlimited arguments in its defense or it would be unfair.

In that situation if I were about to lose a $1billion verdict I would just find the worst bargain basement lawyer that was able to pass the bar and tell him to just go with the 'infinite defense' defense strategy.  More effective than the Chewbacca defense!  Just have him go to court every day for the rest of his life and say anything.... 'blah blah blah blah' or talk about the obscure theory of how weather patterns in South America affected the case.    Over the course of his lifetime I *might* have to pay him 2 million bucks.

 If the judge tells him to cut it short that would be unfair since he wasn't allowed to present *all* of his arguments where that luxury was provided to the accuser.  We'd need a lot more courtrooms judges and taxes paid to support our newly full and accomplishing nothing legal system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


There are several problems with your analogy.

1. If the attorney starts heading off into irrelevancies or repeating himself, the court already has the ability to stop him. So a trial would not go on indefinitely. As soon as he started talking about nonsense, the judge would stop him.

2. In that case, the person has the right to present his case, but the judge has the ability to keep him on topic. In this case, the court is blocking evidence before it even gets admitted.

3. There's an inherent bias created by this activity. By giving each side a 5 pound bag, the court is assuming that the two sides have equal evidence. That means that the weaker side gets to present everything they have while the stronger side has to drop perfectly valid arguments.

Oh, and btw, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in civil cases. Rather, civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence determination. In fact, 'innocent' and 'guilty' technically don't exist at all in civil cases. The plaintiff either wins a judgment or not.

So then is it your opinion there should be no court-imposed limits in this new Apple/Samsung case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits.

Thanks, TS.  That was the funniest comment I've seen here in months.  Nice to see you do indeed have a healthy sense of humor.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

You didn't find the court's decision to be disingenuous when it worked in apple's favour.

Illegal evidence ≠ legal evidence arbitrarily forbidden from entry.

Anything else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent.  As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.

 

 

That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.    

 

• 2012 Jun -  Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
• 2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
• 2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc (all judge) review of the appeals decision.
• 2013 Jan -  Appeals court denies Apple's request.

 

Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot. 

No I am not mixing cases up. What I am talking about is the Judge not awarding the injunction after Apple won the case. The preliminary injunction was merely about Apple's chances of winning at Trial. Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction. It also doesn't matter if Samsung wasn't selling those products anymore because had an injunction been allowed, Apple merely could have added new infringing products based on the infringed patents to be added to the list without having to try each new infringing product. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfts 


I never painted Siri as a bad product as you assume, I think it was not ready for prime time.

Hence it being labeled to this day a beta?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell 

Apple did in fact win at Trial, and it should have been awarded an injunction.

Apple would've, if they had shown the four necessary requirements for an injunction due to utility patents:  1) irreparable harm, 2) inadequacy of monetary damages, 3) balance of hardships, 4) public interest.

They couldn't do so, in part because they had offered Samsung a license rate, which blew away reason #2.  That alone would be enough, but Apple had also presented surveys showing that people bought phones based on their looks, not on their functionality, which helped dismiss utility patent reason #1.  There were many other reasons, as well.

Some blogs have said that, but it took a trial to determine individual device infringement in the first place.  Usually you need to add devices before a trial starts (like Apple is doing now).

But I'm open to the idea.  Would you happen to have a reference that shows a legal precedent for adding items to an injunction later?  That would be very useful.  Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

So they were hurt by attempting to be fair. No good deed, as te saying goes.

Umm. Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.  If the device was running an Apple cross-licensed OS like Windows, they gave a discount.  (Yes, Apple wanted royalties from even Windows Mobile 5 phones.  The reasons given were vague.)   That makes Motorola's asking royalty rates look cheap in comparison.

In any case, that was just one strike against an injunction.  There were others, including the fact that none of the infringing devices were still being sold (or if they were, they had switched to workarounds).  Injunctions cannot be used as punishment, but only to prevent future harm from accused device sales.  

I agree that getting an injunction would've been a precedent that Apple would've liked to have.  (As we know, they got one for the Nexus in this later trial, but it was repealed.)

I think Samsung's success has more to do with switching to heavily promoting a single model name, and with constantly improving their UI and display size.  In other words, by moving away from looking like the iPhone and thus differentiating themselves.

I'm an example of such a customer.  I didn't pay much attention to Samsung smartphones for a long time.  In fact, I was a big HTC fan because of their build quality and Sense.  I didn't like the original TouchWiz (parts looked like a cartoon version of iOS) and I thought Samsung smartphones were too flimsy feeling.  However, I was impressed by how light and thin they were.

It wasn't until the Galaxy Nexus came out, just as I was looking for a replacement CDMA phone, that I began to think Samsung had a phone that I might desire.  By then, the name "Galaxy" had been in use a while, and the reviews were constantly getting better.  The fact that it had ICS on it was icing on the cake (sorry).  It forced me to reevaluate my previous low opinion of Samsung smartphones.

- Siri, go away.

Siri: I don't see 'away' in your address book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 


Not to known trolls who have a large number of posts that contribute little to the discussion at hand. Or spend time very carefully crafting their posts to pretend to be neutral while spouting half-truths.

Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.

I missed the response before. I could look back at some of his earlier posts, but several people moved to personal attacks rather quickly. I still don't agree with their use, in spite of having made a couple stupid ones myself when reading the rant posts of others just really annoyed me that day.