Apple wants Samsung logo on court televisions obscured from jurors in trial

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member


    Two possibilities here.


    1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.


    2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.

  • Reply 22 of 43
    macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member


    Well, at least it's not a Google TV. 

  • Reply 23 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post


    Two possibilities here.


    1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.


    2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.



     


    3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

  • Reply 24 of 43


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post


    Two possibilities here.


    1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.


    2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.



     


    3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.



     


    Nobody is saying thta the process in uncommon or atypical.  Instead, they are saying that the manner in which the process is used by Apple is just plain silly.


     


    Nobody is saying that the process is not within Apple's legal rights.  Instead, they are saying that Apple's exercise of their rights in this manner is just plain silly.


     


     


    Better luck next time.

  • Reply 25 of 43
    popnfreshpopnfresh Posts: 139member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    OK, so we've now established that you've never dealt with any legal matters and/or public opinion. Apple has every right to be concerned that the jury will see Samsung logos around the room and think that Samsung has more sway with the court than Apple. Similarly, if the court were using Apple computers, Samsung would be well within its rights to have the logos hidden.




    There's nothing arrogant about it. The court may decide that it's unnecessary, so Apple may lose the request, but the only arrogance is in the mind of all the Apple haters.



     


    Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?


     


    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.

  • Reply 26 of 43


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    OK, so we've now established that you've never dealt with any legal matters and/or public opinion. Apple has every right to be concerned that the jury will see Samsung logos around the room and think that Samsung has more sway with the court than Apple. Similarly, if the court were using Apple computers, Samsung would be well within its rights to have the logos hidden.




    There's nothing arrogant about it. The court may decide that it's unnecessary, so Apple may lose the request, but the only arrogance is in the mind of all the Apple haters.



     


    Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?


     


    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.



     


    He's always at his funniest when dealing with legal matters.

  • Reply 27 of 43
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.


     



     


     


    First of all, I am not whining. I am making light of a trivial thing. How in the world can anyone take this seriously. This is just another in the millions of meaningless things people do everyday to convince themselves they have value as a human being. That is a very sad thing.

  • Reply 28 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post


     


     


    Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?


     


    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.



     


    I've set foot in a number of courtrooms on business issues. Your indictment for shoplifting isn't relevant.


     


    The logos are most certainly relevant. Apple thinks so. Florian Mueller thinks so, too. The fact is that in a case like this which comes down to credibility of the various players, having Samsung logos all over the court room can introduce a serious bias.

  • Reply 29 of 43
    ktappektappe Posts: 824member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    Gotta love the attention to detail within Apple


     


    No, you don't "gotta love it". As a quarter-century Apple fan, I read this story and think "Really? REALLY?" 

  • Reply 30 of 43
    ktappektappe Posts: 824member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


     


    3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.



     


    It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 

  • Reply 31 of 43


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


     


    3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.



     


    It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 



     


     


    It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  


     


    It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.

  • Reply 32 of 43
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 662member


    In addition to blocking out the logo, the lawyers could install an app named 'fake iPhone 4S' to give it an iOS skin and hide the Android OS.  Come on people; anybody that uses both iOS and Android are never likely to confuse the two. 

  • Reply 33 of 43
    isheldonisheldon Posts: 570member


    As if....?


    Bizarrely petty. 

  • Reply 34 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


     


    It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  


     


    It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.



     


    I guess that explains why you never bother to counter what people actually say.

  • Reply 35 of 43
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post


    In addition to blocking out the logo, the lawyers could install an app named 'fake iPhone 4S' to give it an iOS skin and hide the Android OS.  Come on people; anybody that uses both iOS and Android are never likely to confuse the two. 



     


    That's besides the point.  Samsung didn't have the right to co-opt Apple's design language like they did.  That the software is different doesn't excuse how similar the hardware looks.


     


    Regarding the branding, I think it's reasonable, because the presence of brand logos has a chance of biasing judgement.

  • Reply 36 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


     


    It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  


     


    It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.



     


    I guess that explains why you never bother to counter what people actually say.



     


     


    Yet another strawman.


     


     


    <shrug>

  • Reply 37 of 43
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post


     


     


    It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 




     


    I don't think it is petty.  Psychology experiments have shown that branding and other environmental factors like that can and does alter perceptions and can bias judgement.  The court room has to appear impartial, branding on court equipment needs to reflect that.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


     


    That's besides the point.  Samsung didn't have the right to co-opt Apple's design language like they did.  That the software is different doesn't excuse how similar the hardware looks.


     


    Regarding the branding, I think it's reasonable, because the presence of brand logos has a chance of biasing judgement.



    Samsung is going about their business blatantly copying Apple and as such I support anything Apple or anyone else does to work against them. I am not against Samsung products per se but last night there was an add on TV that ended with the words "... the revolutionary [Samsung Smartphone of some variety]". That is an Apple line, no? The copying is shameless and calculated and beneath contempt.  Unfortunately it has done and is doing Samsung a world of good.

  • Reply 39 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

    …an add on TV that ended with the words "… the revolutionary [Samsung Smartphone of some variety]". That is an Apple line, no?


     


    Ooh… you're gonna get slammed for that by people taking what you've said out of context.

  • Reply 40 of 43
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    And what about them MacBook pros and iMacs already?
    Yes because Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Sign In or Register to comment.