The funny thing is that the iPad and the Tab have different aspect ratios and that should've been enough to tell them apart. Dumb ass lawyer didnt even know that
When it's a trade dress issue (and it is), the aspect ratio is completely irrelevant.
So ... since you didn't know that, you might want to scale back on calling people dumb-asses.
If it's a case like this between companies based in different countries, the judge shouldn't have any ties to either country.
1. who won't be a trained expert in US law
2. pointless since there is a thing called appeals. If you don't like the ruling and you think it is due to some kind of bias, you appeal and it goes to another, higher level, judge who rules on the issue of bias etc.
When it's a trade dress issue (and it is), the aspect ratio is completely irrelevant.
Maybe, maybe not. Trade dress is based on a patent. was aspect ratio included in that patent. If it was and it was specifically the 4:3 that Apple uses then aspect ratio is relevant although only one of several issues.
If a specific aspect ratio wasn't included then yes it is likely an irrelevant detail since Apple probably worded the patent such that they would have the ability to change the ratio of their own devices and they would still be covered by the patent.
As for the dumb ass lawyer comment, it is valid. As the lawyer for one of the parties he/she should know the product enough to know that his/her client's would be longer etc due to the different aspect ratio and have been able to pick it out based on that.
2. pointless since there is a thing called appeals. If you don't like the ruling and you think it is due to some kind of bias, you appeal and it goes to another, higher level, judge who rules on the issue of bias etc.
But you only get the single appeal, right? How is it handled in cases where the appeal is done on the basis of bias?
I've reported both offenders and encourage others to do the same.
Click the little flag, it's easy.
I did as well but nothing happened so I guess they don't care about racist comments on this site. Perhaps it has something to do that some of the comments came from a Moderator which is truly sad and pathetic.
But you only get the single appeal, right? How is it handled in cases where the appeal is done on the basis of bias?
The same as any other appeal. You argue the basis of the appeal in front of the appeals court. They generally do NOT re-hear the entire case, only the issue that is being appealed.
If you feel that the judge is biased, you'd better have evidence. Issuing a stupid ruling is not grounds for arguing bias. Rather, you argue against the stupid rulings. About the only way you're going to win a bias issue on appeal is if the judge makes specific comments that are racist. "S/he must be racist because s/he is from Korea and s/he ruled against me" isn't going to fly.
I did as well but nothing happened so I guess they don't care about racist comments on this site. Perhaps it has something to do that some of the comments came from a Moderator which is truly sad and pathetic.
The moderator didn't make any racist remarks. Maybe you're just trying a little too hard to find something to be offended by.
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief"
He never made any remarks that insinuated either... His concern was that there could be bias in the case if Koh were a racist. Agree or disagree, but he has the right to his opinion, and in the real world, people make decisions based on race all the time. I suppose you're one of those people that says things like, "I so could have been born black". People like you are a threat to liberty and free speech.
Hey Skil, by your logic, Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 case due to his sexual orientation.
By the same logic, U.S. judges should recuse themselves from any international case involving a U.S. company. When you express it that way, it's even more absurd. So who's going to try international cases involving U.S. companies in U.S. courts? Should we bring in judges from other countries who are not familiar with our laws in order to avoid bias?
Obviously, the logic is flawed. There's no reason to believe that someone is biased simply because of where their ancestors were born. If you try to argue that in front of a judge, you'd get laughed out of court. I guess it's just remotely conceivable that you might get away with arguing it if the country is the size of Monaco or one of the other tiny countries where everyone knows everyone else, but in that case, the argument would be that the judge should step down because s/he knows the defendant, not because they're from the same country.
I asked before and never got a response: why does that have to be the case?
Because - your argument is that a judge of Korean descent can not judge fairly in a case involving a Korean company.
If your statement is correct, by exactly the same logic, a judge of American descent can not judge fairly in a case involving an American company.
So in order to get a fair trial, you'd have to bring in non-American judges. And since the number of American judges can barely keep up with the caseload, it is not plausible that there will be enough foreign judges who are familiar with our laws. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for hiring foreign judges to try cases involving American companies in American courts. For that matter, it might even be unconstitutional.
In any event, your argument that someone who has one or more Korean ancestors can not be impartial in a case involving a Korean company is bogus, It has no legal precedent and just doesn't make sense in light of the above.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
She is Korean, what do you expect?
So you're a racist and a troll?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
So you're a racist and a troll?
Korea is a race?
I thought is was a country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The funny thing is that the iPad and the Tab have different aspect ratios and that should've been enough to tell them apart. Dumb ass lawyer didnt even know that
When it's a trade dress issue (and it is), the aspect ratio is completely irrelevant.
So ... since you didn't know that, you might want to scale back on calling people dumb-asses.
Re: the racist remarks ...
I've reported both offenders and encourage others to do the same.
Click the little flag, it's easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Korea is a race?
I thought is was a country?
When someone makes a racist remark, you don't do anyone any favours trying to make a stupid joke about it.
It's a serious thing. You're not "lightening things up" or anything similar, you're making it worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If it's a case like this between companies based in different countries, the judge shouldn't have any ties to either country.
1. who won't be a trained expert in US law
2. pointless since there is a thing called appeals. If you don't like the ruling and you think it is due to some kind of bias, you appeal and it goes to another, higher level, judge who rules on the issue of bias etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
When it's a trade dress issue (and it is), the aspect ratio is completely irrelevant.
Maybe, maybe not. Trade dress is based on a patent. was aspect ratio included in that patent. If it was and it was specifically the 4:3 that Apple uses then aspect ratio is relevant although only one of several issues.
If a specific aspect ratio wasn't included then yes it is likely an irrelevant detail since Apple probably worded the patent such that they would have the ability to change the ratio of their own devices and they would still be covered by the patent.
As for the dumb ass lawyer comment, it is valid. As the lawyer for one of the parties he/she should know the product enough to know that his/her client's would be longer etc due to the different aspect ratio and have been able to pick it out based on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
1. who won't be a trained expert in US law
Why does that have to be the case?
Quote:
2. pointless since there is a thing called appeals. If you don't like the ruling and you think it is due to some kind of bias, you appeal and it goes to another, higher level, judge who rules on the issue of bias etc.
But you only get the single appeal, right? How is it handled in cases where the appeal is done on the basis of bias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Re: the racist remarks ...
I've reported both offenders and encourage others to do the same.
Click the little flag, it's easy.
I did as well but nothing happened so I guess they don't care about racist comments on this site. Perhaps it has something to do that some of the comments came from a Moderator which is truly sad and pathetic.
The same as any other appeal. You argue the basis of the appeal in front of the appeals court. They generally do NOT re-hear the entire case, only the issue that is being appealed.
If you feel that the judge is biased, you'd better have evidence. Issuing a stupid ruling is not grounds for arguing bias. Rather, you argue against the stupid rulings. About the only way you're going to win a bias issue on appeal is if the judge makes specific comments that are racist. "S/he must be racist because s/he is from Korea and s/he ruled against me" isn't going to fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
When someone makes a racist remark, you don't do anyone any favours trying to make a stupid joke about it.
It's a serious thing. You're not "lightening things up" or anything similar, you're making it worse.
Insensitive or not, people can joke about and say whatever they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
I did as well but nothing happened so I guess they don't care about racist comments on this site. Perhaps it has something to do that some of the comments came from a Moderator which is truly sad and pathetic.
The moderator didn't make any racist remarks. Maybe you're just trying a little too hard to find something to be offended by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
The moderator didn't make any racist remarks. Maybe you're just trying a little too hard to find something to be offended by.
Yes the moderator did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yes the moderator did.
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief"
He never made any remarks that insinuated either... His concern was that there could be bias in the case if Koh were a racist. Agree or disagree, but he has the right to his opinion, and in the real world, people make decisions based on race all the time. I suppose you're one of those people that says things like, "I so could have been born black". People like you are a threat to liberty and free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Agree or disagree,
I disagree.
Geez Mods, I said "Looks like the Apple bribes are working" and you give me an infarction and delete the comment?? (see first post of thread)
You think the censorship in communist countries is bad, welcome to the Republic of Apple.
By the same logic, U.S. judges should recuse themselves from any international case involving a U.S. company. When you express it that way, it's even more absurd. So who's going to try international cases involving U.S. companies in U.S. courts? Should we bring in judges from other countries who are not familiar with our laws in order to avoid bias?
Obviously, the logic is flawed. There's no reason to believe that someone is biased simply because of where their ancestors were born. If you try to argue that in front of a judge, you'd get laughed out of court. I guess it's just remotely conceivable that you might get away with arguing it if the country is the size of Monaco or one of the other tiny countries where everyone knows everyone else, but in that case, the argument would be that the judge should step down because s/he knows the defendant, not because they're from the same country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Should we bring in judges from other countries who are not familiar with our laws…
I asked before and never got a response: why does that have to be the case?
Because - your argument is that a judge of Korean descent can not judge fairly in a case involving a Korean company.
If your statement is correct, by exactly the same logic, a judge of American descent can not judge fairly in a case involving an American company.
So in order to get a fair trial, you'd have to bring in non-American judges. And since the number of American judges can barely keep up with the caseload, it is not plausible that there will be enough foreign judges who are familiar with our laws. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for hiring foreign judges to try cases involving American companies in American courts. For that matter, it might even be unconstitutional.
In any event, your argument that someone who has one or more Korean ancestors can not be impartial in a case involving a Korean company is bogus, It has no legal precedent and just doesn't make sense in light of the above.