or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Note that AI is not the government but a privately owned company that can do as it sees fit… unless you wish to actually defy argue that the democratic republic in which is was created is wrong for allowing it to conduct business as it sees fit.
So basically doing as it pleases
post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, when your posts call for the carpet-bombing of a country, which is the more totalitarian ideology?

No, it was just plain wrong.
It was a tongue in cheek comment in the context of the current political situation with regards to NK.
I would never advocate the killing of any body, let alone an entire country.
It was a means to show others that perhaps NK is not really the enemy here.
post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?

You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.

Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.

Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
I never painted Siri as a bad product as you assume, I think it was not ready for prime time.
post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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.

post #45 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

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.

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.
"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 #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

The system is self-correcting. When someone drones on endlessly, they lose the jury's attention - and can even cause the jury to vote against them due to spite. Smart lawyers realize that.

I think the appropriate response would have been to simply ask each side how much time they needed (reminding them that dragging it out is counterproductive and that the judge will stop filibustering if it occurs). If the time guidance provided by the two sides was too long for a reasonable jury trial, then it should have been broken down into multiple trials (perhaps one or two patents per trial rather than 10 or 15) rather than arbitrarily limiting either side's right to present its case.
"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 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

How come I need to waste my precious time and spell things out.
It needs to be improved, and WHEN it does to an acceptable level then it won't be called a beta product.
I will come back to answer your other points
To be continued ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

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

You did! You said it shouldn't have been released as a Beta while saying it needs to be better. Since you completely ignored the complexity of the service and that a dozen guys coding Siri in Cupertino can't possibly work the testing in a lab environment you foolishly overlooked how it needs to learn in your pooh-poohing of the service.

Note that once Siri is out of Beta it still won't be complete. It will never be complete! Language evolves too quickly for that to ever happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

So basically doing as it pleases

When you run a business you can chose how it operates… or do you want to state again how you are against a free market system?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #49 of 63

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:33pm
post #50 of 63
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

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?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You did! You said it shouldn't have been released as a Beta while saying it needs to be better. Since you completely ignored the complexity of the service and that a dozen guys coding Siri in Cupertino can't possibly work the testing in a lab environment you foolishly overlooked how it needs to learn in your pooh-poohing of the service.

Note that once Siri is out of Beta it still won't be complete. It will never be complete! Language evolves too quickly for that to ever happen.
When you run a business you can chose how it operates… or do you want to state again how you are against a free market system?
I know the Apple stocks are down so you may have a vested interest.
I think I am allowed to criticise when I feel it's warranted.
By one of the comments aimed at me: "if you don't like AI" you can leave.
Gads I get this bullshit all the time. You don't like something about Australia you can leave etc.
What moronic childish statements, so no one is allowed to criticise?
Grow up people.
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

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. 

post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


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?

post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Hence it being labeled to this day a beta?
So tell me, how many products have Apple released officially as beta? To my recollection, only Siri.
So why did they do this? To get there first? To help differentiate a new product from an older one?
I'm still waiting for an answer but not getting any, just apologies for Apple.
People should be less defensive and more critical, otherwise be like an Ostrich.
post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Hence it being labeled to this day a beta?

He seems to want it to be finished and yet not released until finished despite it not being possible to finish unless it's released. I don't think people understand how much nuance is needed for this type of service. Understanding your phonemes is hard enough but then trying to get it to understand your meaning and then search for the answer you're looking within a huge number of cultures and subcultures is just huge. Even within the same home there can be wild differences based on age, gender, and professions.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

So tell me, how many products have Apple released officially as beta? To my recollection, only Siri.
So why did they do this? To get there first? To help differentiate a new product from an older one?
I'm still waiting for an answer but not getting any, just apologies for Apple.
People should be less defensive and more critical, otherwise be like an Ostrich.

Quite a few. Safari was a public beta before it was ever part of their OS. I also seem to recall Safari 3 for Windows was also a public beta. Those are just examples of stability for the public beta and not trying to determine how the services will be used and what will be the most common requests for the service.

Then you have QuickTime and the first version of Mac OS X. Now all the Mac OS X and iOS betas require you to be in their paid developer programs but they betas. I think Xcode betas might be available to anyone who is signed up.

Then you have iWork.com that was a beta for over 3.5 years before they finally shut it down last Summer, and MobileMe Mail and Calendar betas. Finally, there is the Apple TV. They don't call it a beta but it's HW, they call it a "hobby" which sounds like they have even less confidence in it than a beta.

There are others as well as least one I think was labeled as preview, but as you can see Siri is by far not the first thing they labeled as beta.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/10/13 at 6:20pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

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.

 

Quote:
 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. 

 

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!

post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

They couldn't do so, in part because they had offered Samsung a license rate, which blew away reason #2

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

Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #59 of 63
Beta has now become just a marketing term. Was IOS Maps ever beta? Who is kidding who?
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.)

 

 

Quote:
Q: Do you think Samsung's ill gotten lead has caused irreparable harm to other Android-based vendors or do you thing Samsumg would have been as successful and the others as u successful had they decided not to steal IP?

 

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.

post #61 of 63

- Siri, go away.

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

post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

So tell me, how many products have Apple released officially as beta? To my recollection, only Siri.

Wrong. Mac OS X 10.0, for one. Safari. iTunes.
"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 #63 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined