HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
The headline you quoted is from a completely different court case. That one refers to the one in the United States. The case referred to in this article is from Dutch.
Only Apple's and Samsung's lawyers know the complete details and they'll eventually duke it out. We're just getting tidbits here and there, so it's unfair for us to judge either way.
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
Actually, I would like to see the direct quote from the judge. I suspect that this is incorrect.
Under U.S. patent law, a patent is considered valid unless overturned. If Samsung wants to challenge the patents, it would be up to Samsung to challenge them - and then show evidence that they are not valid.
I suspect that the judge actually said that Apple has to prove infringement. That would be a legally correct statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So one lawyer's near-sighted,
So you're claiming that Samsung isn't paying their attorneys enough for them to be able to afford glasses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
The fact that she did that experiment at all, shows she thinks that it's a copy (of the iPad). That's a pretty big hint what the verdict will be.
Exactly. The judge would not have done the experiment if there wasn't reasonable suspicion that the Samsung tablet was a copy.
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
Wrong.
Legally, one shouldn't have to study every detail to be able to tell the difference. A layman who has never seen the devices before should be able to tell the difference if Samsung were not blatantly copying.
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Yes! An embarrassing faux pas by one of Samsung's lawyers probably means Apple's case is toast! Keep 'em coming!
asking a lawyer to point out which is the galaxy and which is the ipad is irrelevant honestly. first of all they are lawyers im willing to bet people who actually work for samsung could point the difference out. and if they couldnt have that would have carried a little more clout that asking some idiot lawyer. Apple needs to get over itself their products arent anything special. Apple is just overpriced tech. Most Apple consumers are snobs or wanna be snobs. Anytime someone i know buys a imac or macbook "pro" i laugh in their face so hard for getting ripped off. it just people are so misinformed about apple and how restrictive the company is to consumers. Thats why i will never own a product of theirs.
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
Wow, why did Apple even bother litigating when they could have checked with internet lawyers who have decisively concluded that they have no case?
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
So basically the company that so many people are wailing and gnashing teeth over how unfairly it has been treated that also rakes in billions of dollars a year has hired incompetent counsel? No wonder Samsung has lost three (3) injunctions in three (3) different countries.
P.S. if either of you have passed the bar, I suspect there is a lucrative job opening available.
asking a lawyer to point out which is the galaxy and which is the ipad is irrelevant honestly. first of all they are lawyers im willing to bet people who actually work for samsung could point the difference out. and if they couldnt have that would have carried a little more clout that asking some idiot lawyer. Apple needs to get over itself their products arent anything special. Apple is just overpriced tech. Most Apple consumers are snobs or wanna be snobs. Anytime someone i know buys a imac or macbook "pro" i laugh in their face so hard for getting ripped off. it just people are so misinformed about apple and how restrictive the company is to consumers. Thats why i will never own a product of theirs.
That's ridiculous. The whole point of trade dress is to decide if the infringing product dilutes the brand of the suing party which relies on NORMAL consumers. Having an "expert" employed by the possibly infringing party choose between the products would prove nothing.
first of all they are lawyers im willing to bet people who actually work for samsung could point the difference out.
Thanks for COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MISSING THE POINT, going so far as to be THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the point.
WHO GIVES A FRICK if Samsung employees know the difference? THAT'S NOT THE LAWSUIT. The lawsuit is if regular people can tell the difference. And Samsung's own lawyers have just proven they can't.
Quote:
and if they couldnt have that would have carried a little more clout that asking some idiot lawyer.
Should have asked some idiot consumer.
Quote:
Apple needs to get over itself their products arent anything special.
In the immortal words of Tommy Wiseau: "OH, HI, TROLL."
Quote:
Apple is just overpriced tech.
Please look up the definition of 'overpriced'. Then come back and laugh at yourself.
Quote:
Most Apple consumers are snobs or wanna be snobs.
Reported. Shortest troll account ever? I think so.
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
Maybe they weren't real lawyers... just copies of real lawyers
Why is AI not covering the MEAT AND POTATOES of this recent court proceedings: that Apple's patent might be invalid throwing the entire case out the door?
Because it would disfavor Apple.
I found the right place.
How about giving a link to your sources?
How pathetic and unethical is it for you people to not cite sources?
That is journalism 101.
Even high school students know how to do it.
AI, "Are you better than a high schooler?" Season 1 first episode showing in Oct 30.
Comments
Other highlights from the article:
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
The headline you quoted is from a completely different court case. That one refers to the one in the United States. The case referred to in this article is from Dutch.
Only Apple's and Samsung's lawyers know the complete details and they'll eventually duke it out. We're just getting tidbits here and there, so it's unfair for us to judge either way.
2nd lawyer: "Hell yeah! I guessed it right!"
Other highlights from the article:
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
Actually, I would like to see the direct quote from the judge. I suspect that this is incorrect.
Under U.S. patent law, a patent is considered valid unless overturned. If Samsung wants to challenge the patents, it would be up to Samsung to challenge them - and then show evidence that they are not valid.
I suspect that the judge actually said that Apple has to prove infringement. That would be a legally correct statement.
So one lawyer's near-sighted,
So you're claiming that Samsung isn't paying their attorneys enough for them to be able to afford glasses?
The fact that she did that experiment at all, shows she thinks that it's a copy (of the iPad). That's a pretty big hint what the verdict will be.
Exactly. The judge would not have done the experiment if there wasn't reasonable suspicion that the Samsung tablet was a copy.
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
Wrong.
Legally, one shouldn't have to study every detail to be able to tell the difference. A layman who has never seen the devices before should be able to tell the difference if Samsung were not blatantly copying.
Other highlights from the article:
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Yes! An embarrassing faux pas by one of Samsung's lawyers probably means Apple's case is toast! Keep 'em coming!
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
Pinch and zoom circa 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
Microsoft Multi-Touch Patent App Predates Apple?s
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609
Tablet UI concepts, circa 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Touch gestures, including two-finger pinch, circa 1992:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30828816089246
Multitouch UIs, 1970s forward:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
And then there's this summary from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
Wow, why did Apple even bother litigating when they could have checked with internet lawyers who have decisively concluded that they have no case?
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
So basically the company that so many people are wailing and gnashing teeth over how unfairly it has been treated that also rakes in billions of dollars a year has hired incompetent counsel? No wonder Samsung has lost three (3) injunctions in three (3) different countries.
P.S. if either of you have passed the bar, I suspect there is a lucrative job opening available.
asking a lawyer to point out which is the galaxy and which is the ipad is irrelevant honestly. first of all they are lawyers im willing to bet people who actually work for samsung could point the difference out. and if they couldnt have that would have carried a little more clout that asking some idiot lawyer. Apple needs to get over itself their products arent anything special. Apple is just overpriced tech. Most Apple consumers are snobs or wanna be snobs. Anytime someone i know buys a imac or macbook "pro" i laugh in their face so hard for getting ripped off. it just people are so misinformed about apple and how restrictive the company is to consumers. Thats why i will never own a product of theirs.
That's ridiculous. The whole point of trade dress is to decide if the infringing product dilutes the brand of the suing party which relies on NORMAL consumers. Having an "expert" employed by the possibly infringing party choose between the products would prove nothing.
first of all they are lawyers im willing to bet people who actually work for samsung could point the difference out.
Thanks for COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MISSING THE POINT, going so far as to be THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the point.
WHO GIVES A FRICK if Samsung employees know the difference? THAT'S NOT THE LAWSUIT. The lawsuit is if regular people can tell the difference. And Samsung's own lawyers have just proven they can't.
and if they couldnt have that would have carried a little more clout that asking some idiot lawyer.
Should have asked some idiot consumer.
Apple needs to get over itself their products arent anything special.
In the immortal words of Tommy Wiseau: "OH, HI, TROLL."
Apple is just overpriced tech.
Please look up the definition of 'overpriced'. Then come back and laugh at yourself.
Most Apple consumers are snobs or wanna be snobs.
Reported. Shortest troll account ever? I think so.
Thats why i will never own a product of theirs.
So go away.
This actually only showed 1 thing: Samsung hired clueless lawyers who're totally unprepared. I mean, when you pay that kind of dollar for these lawyers, they're supposed to study every detail of each device and could see all the differences without any trouble.
Maybe they weren't real lawyers... just copies of real lawyers
Wow, why did Apple even bother litigating when they could have checked with internet lawyers who have decisively concluded that they have no case?
serious question, and can you put your unbridled dislike for me aside for a second, what of what he posted do you not agree with?
Because it would disfavor Apple.
I found the right place.
How about giving a link to your sources?
How pathetic and unethical is it for you people to not cite sources?
That is journalism 101.
Even high school students know how to do it.
AI, "Are you better than a high schooler?" Season 1 first episode showing in Oct 30.
..."Maybe you're ready for a thicker set. "
hahahaha OH SNAP!!!
Epic Fail!!!! That dude career is over..... and he kind of deserve it for been unprepared...
Um, that dude's name is Kathleen.