There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.
The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...
ROTFLMAO.
The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.
For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.
Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.
The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.
As pointed out above (and as you Apple-haters continue to ignore), Apple won the only thing that matters. Samsung, at least, has stopped making slavish copies of Apple products. The Galaxy SIII, while far too large for my taste and incredibly ugly, is not such a close copy of Apple products that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference.
Do you think Apple's goal was to win a few million dollars in a lawsuit? If so, you really don't have any clue how Apple works. Apple simply wanted to be able to maintain its unique position and put a stop to the slavish copying. If the Galaxy SIII is any sign, it looks like Apple succeeded.
But you said identical not close enough from a distance. I'd like to see these identical copies you're referring to, and not just the front. id
The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.
For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.
How do you know the lawyer wasn't an old fart who didn't have his glasses immediately handy. The point is, the lawyer made it clear he couldn't tell because of the distance, and another lawyer quickly gave an answer. Most reasonable individuals, without the bias that you display, would not consider this incident to be a 'decisive' indication of copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.
So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?
I have never implied that any court definitively ruled that Samsung has never made a slavish copy, in fact, I will even say that a court would NEVER do that. I derive the conclusion that Samsung does not make slavish copies from the fact that most of Apple's allegations to that effect have either been dismissed or ruled against. It is Apple's inability to prove that it DOES happen that leads me to believe that it DOESN'T...
How do you know the lawyer wasn't an old fart who didn't have his glasses immediately handy. The point is, the lawyer made it clear he couldn't tell because of the distance, and another lawyer quickly gave an answer. Most reasonable individuals, without the bias that you display, would not consider this incident to be a 'decisive' indication of copying.
The facts are simple. You have a lawyer who had been working with the two products for months. Yet when asked to distinguish them, he couldn't. Yes, the other attorney could, but when the attorneys who have worked exclusively on the product for months can't tell the difference, the similarly is painfully obvious.
If the attorney was blind, he would have mentioned that to the court. Or the attorney could have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer". Or Samsung would have mentioned it in all of the blogs covering the topic. Furthermore, you're ignoring that it wasn't just one attorney who couldn't tell the difference. The way the article is written, NONE of the attorneys could tell the difference at first, although after some time, one (but reportedly ONLY one) of the attorneys figured it out. http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/judge-holds-up-ipad-2-and-galaxy-tab-in-court-samsung-lawyers-cant-tell-the-difference-20111014/
"Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered first, stating she couldn’t from that distance, the other Samsung lawyers couldn’t either, but one at least did after some thought."
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer."
Sorry, but you're absolutely refusing to consider obvious facts. How much is Samsung paying you?
So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?
I have never implied that any court definitively ruled that Samsung has never made a slavish copy, in fact, I will even say that a court would NEVER do that. I derive the conclusion that Samsung does make slavish copies from the fact that most of Apple's allegations to that effect have either been dismissed or ruled against. It is Apple's inability to prove that it DOES happen that leads me to believe that it DOESN'T...
Actually, I simply want you to back up the assertions that you make. You said (word for word):
"The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products"
So where are these court rulings that say that Apple was never making slavish copies of Apple products?
Oh, and btw, Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product. From the same article as above:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents," (noting that the subject in front of Koh at the time were design patents - which have to do with appearance rather than functionality.
The Galaxy Tab was close enough that even Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference. And that was an attorney who had been working with the two products to the exclusion of anything else for months. That's close enough to be considered a slavish copy.
And what effect did that have on the case other than making Samsungs lawyer look stupid. Id say none since Apple failed to get the injuction. Had I been one of Samsungs other lawyers I would've simply held up a white iPad and a Galaxy Tab and asked if they can be told apart. In my book something black and another white aren't identical copies.
The facts are simple. You have a lawyer who had been working with the two products for months. Yet when asked to distinguish them, he couldn't. Yes, the other attorney could, but when the attorneys who have worked exclusively on the product for months can't tell the difference, the similarly is painfully obvious.
If the attorney was blind, he would have mentioned that to the court. Or the attorney could have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer". Or Samsung would have mentioned it in all of the blogs covering the topic. Furthermore, you're ignoring that it wasn't just one attorney who couldn't tell the difference. The way the article is written, NONE of the attorneys could tell the difference at first, although after some time, one (but reportedly ONLY one) of the attorneys figured it out.
"Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered first, stating she couldn’t from that distance, the other Samsung lawyers couldn’t either, but one at least did after some thought."
"According to this report U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked a Samsung attorney if he could tell which tablet was which.
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer."
Sorry, but you're absolutely refusing to consider obvious facts. How much is Samsung paying you?
Actually, I simply want you to back up the assertions that you make. You said (word for word):
"The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products"
So where are these court rulings that say that Apple was never making slavish copies of Apple products?
Oh, and btw, Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product. From the same article as above:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents," (noting that the subject in front of Koh at the time were design patents - which have to do with appearance rather than functionality.
You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?
You are once again giving WRONG information when you state that "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product." I love how you back this claim up by quoting some opinion in an article written 10/14/2011, when Koh's ruling for this case came out 12/3/2011, over 6 weeks later! I have a novel idea, why don't you actually reference the ruling itself, in which the preliminary injunction was DENIED because all 4 of Apple's allegations were not found to demonstrate both infringement and validity?
I understand that you feel Samsung copied Apple's IP, but do you really have to continue to present blatantly inaccurate information and distort facts to support your position?
There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.
The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...
He is a anything-but-apple-hater and doesn't have any coherent argument so I wouldn't worry too much.
for the love of god... I can only imagine what we would have if the money and time defending this crap iOS for kids had been dumped into designing computers for the talented people like before.
Or really? I wasn't aware that Apple had to fund their litigation by reducing their budget for new projects. They must not have enough operating cash if they are taking money away from new product development.
And what effect did that have on the case other than making Samsungs lawyer look stupid. Id say none since Apple failed to get the injuction. Had I been one of Samsungs other lawyers I would've simply held up a white iPad and a Galaxy Tab and asked if they can be told apart. In my book something black and another white aren't identical copies.
Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.
And, once again, none of these cases matters a whole heck of a lot. Apple got what it wanted. Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication. That is what Apple needed to do. The money is incidental.
You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?
You are once again giving WRONG information when you state that "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product." I love how you back this claim up by quoting some opinion in an article written 10/14/2011, when Koh's ruling for this case came out 12/3/2011, over 6 weeks later! I have a novel idea, why don't you actually reference the ruling itself, in which the preliminary injunction was DENIED because all 4 of Apple's allegations were not found to demonstrate both infringement and validity?
I understand that you feel Samsung copied Apple's IP, but do you really have to continue to present blatantly inaccurate information and distort facts to support your position?
I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.
Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.
No, copying will be established IF the patents are valid, you have to read better the ruling. It is comprensible that you claim that anybody copies Apple if you can't understand a simple ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't be more real
Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.
Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
No, the trial hasn't started. The injunction wasn't granted because Judge Koh said that Apple patent was likely not valid, but Apple appealed and this decission was reversed and now has asked for the injunction.
So, the claim that court have stablished that Samsun has slavishly copied Apple is still false, because the trial hasn't finished and nothing has been stablished
No, the trial hasn't started. The injunction wasn't granted because Judge Koh said that Apple patent was likely not valid, but Apple appealed and this decission was reversed and now has asked for the injunction.
So, the claim that court have stablished that Samsun has slavishly copied Apple is still false, because the trial hasn't finished and nothing has been stablished
I'm talking about the trial for the injunction (which was settled but then appealed) which has no bearing on the actual patents case. Judges rarely grant injunctions because while the offending product/device might be causing some harm to the plaintiff (Apple) granting an injunction would most certainly cause harm to the defendant (Samsung).
I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.
I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in your post.
Again...PLEASE stop distorting the facts in order to support of your position...
No, copying will be established IF the patents are valid, you have to read better the ruling. It is comprensible that you claim that anybody copies Apple if you can't understand a simple ruling
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't be more real
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
I said that Apple accomplished what has to be its main objective - it got Samsung to stop making slavish copies if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.
Here's an experiment.
Put an iPad next to a Samsung Tab (before all the legal battles).
Now, put a Galaxy SIII next to an iPhone 4s (after all the legal battles).
It is blatantly obvious that Samsung is not making their product look as much like Apple's product as they did before Apple sued them.
Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
No, the matter was not settled. The injunction was not granted. The court stated that the Samsung product was a copy of the iPad, but declined granting the injunction until the patent validity was settled. There has not been a hearing yet on infringement (and won't be until the patent validity challenge is settled).
I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in your post.
Again...PLEASE stop distorting the facts in order to support of your position...
One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"
Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.
Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.
In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied. However, that does not mean that it MUST have been copied. For example, what if there was a patent that was invalidated due to previous art? Who then was copied, the one with the patent, or the ones with the prior art? If a patent was invalidated due to being 'non-inventive' and obvious, was it still copying, even though the evolution was deemed 'obvious'?
The point that is being made, is that simply having two similar looking products does not necessarily imply "copying". Many design changes naturally take place during technology shifts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some designs may come out looking similar. In fact, across many different consumer products you will see similarities across multiple brands.
I would gladly reconsider my position of giving Samsung the benefit of the doubt if something other than "they look similar" was shown to be the case. However, nothing significant has been proven in a court of law, with many allegations being dismissed.
jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.
In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied. However, that does not mean that it MUST have been copied. For example, what if there was a patent that was invalidated due to previous art? Who then was copied, the one with the patent, or the ones with the prior art? If a patent was invalidated due to being 'non-inventive' and obvious, was it still copying, even though the evolution was deemed 'obvious'?
The point that is being made, is that simply having two similar looking products does not necessarily imply "copying". Many design changes naturally take place during technology shifts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some designs may come out looking similar. In fact, across many different consumer products you will see similarities across multiple brands.
I would gladly reconsider my position of giving Samsung the benefit of the doubt if something other than "they look similar" was shown to be the case. However, nothing significant has been proven in a court of law, with many allegations being dismissed.
And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied? And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?
And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied?
Judge Koh did not say that Samsung "copied", she said that it is very well possible that Samsung infringed, but she questioned the validity of Apple's patent. Did you read my previous comment about invalidated patents not necessarily implying copying??
Quote:
And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?
Are you seriously asking this? Did you even read my previous comment about "looking the same" not necessarily implying copying?
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
Strangest logic? If IT is legal copy it, Samsung doesn't have to change anything and that is what you're saying. That according to court wins they have changed thirs phones and that is totally false
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie
No, Judge Koh indicated that is LIKELY that Apple would win in the trial, totally different. I repeat, you have to read the court orders, not what some blogs say about it
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"
Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.
Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
Again, you have to read what the judge have said, not what some blogger thinks she has said.
Comments
ROTFLMAO.
The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.
For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.
Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.
But you said identical not close enough from a distance. I'd like to see these identical copies you're referring to, and not just the front. id
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The lawyer was about 10 feet away. The attorney had been working on iPads and Tabs for months - and should have known everything about them. The fact that the attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet is pretty strong indication that it was a slavish copy.
For example, put an iPhone 4S and Galaxy SIII 10 feet away. Anyone who isn't blind can tell the difference - even though the devices are smaller. Claiming that they look nothing alike when the attorney couldn't distinguish them from 10 feet is ridiculous.
How do you know the lawyer wasn't an old fart who didn't have his glasses immediately handy. The point is, the lawyer made it clear he couldn't tell because of the distance, and another lawyer quickly gave an answer. Most reasonable individuals, without the bias that you display, would not consider this incident to be a 'decisive' indication of copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, and btw, what court ruling says that Samsung has never made slavish copies of Apple products? Please cite the case and the exact wording to support your claim.
So now the onus is on me to prove that something DIDN'T happen? Seriously?!?
I have never implied that any court definitively ruled that Samsung has never made a slavish copy, in fact, I will even say that a court would NEVER do that. I derive the conclusion that Samsung does not make slavish copies from the fact that most of Apple's allegations to that effect have either been dismissed or ruled against. It is Apple's inability to prove that it DOES happen that leads me to believe that it DOESN'T...
The facts are simple. You have a lawyer who had been working with the two products for months. Yet when asked to distinguish them, he couldn't. Yes, the other attorney could, but when the attorneys who have worked exclusively on the product for months can't tell the difference, the similarly is painfully obvious.
If the attorney was blind, he would have mentioned that to the court. Or the attorney could have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer". Or Samsung would have mentioned it in all of the blogs covering the topic. Furthermore, you're ignoring that it wasn't just one attorney who couldn't tell the difference. The way the article is written, NONE of the attorneys could tell the difference at first, although after some time, one (but reportedly ONLY one) of the attorneys figured it out.
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/judge-holds-up-ipad-2-and-galaxy-tab-in-court-samsung-lawyers-cant-tell-the-difference-20111014/
"Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered first, stating she couldn’t from that distance, the other Samsung lawyers couldn’t either, but one at least did after some thought."
Want a different perspective?
http://www.cultofmac.com/123751/samsungs-lawyers-tell-judge-that-they-cant-tell-the-difference-between-an-ipad-and-a-galaxy-tab/
"According to this report U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked a Samsung attorney if he could tell which tablet was which.
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer."
Sorry, but you're absolutely refusing to consider obvious facts. How much is Samsung paying you?
Actually, I simply want you to back up the assertions that you make. You said (word for word):
"The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products"
So where are these court rulings that say that Apple was never making slavish copies of Apple products?
Oh, and btw, Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product. From the same article as above:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents," (noting that the subject in front of Koh at the time were design patents - which have to do with appearance rather than functionality.
And what effect did that have on the case other than making Samsungs lawyer look stupid. Id say none since Apple failed to get the injuction. Had I been one of Samsungs other lawyers I would've simply held up a white iPad and a Galaxy Tab and asked if they can be told apart. In my book something black and another white aren't identical copies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The facts are simple. You have a lawyer who had been working with the two products for months. Yet when asked to distinguish them, he couldn't. Yes, the other attorney could, but when the attorneys who have worked exclusively on the product for months can't tell the difference, the similarly is painfully obvious.
If the attorney was blind, he would have mentioned that to the court. Or the attorney could have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer". Or Samsung would have mentioned it in all of the blogs covering the topic. Furthermore, you're ignoring that it wasn't just one attorney who couldn't tell the difference. The way the article is written, NONE of the attorneys could tell the difference at first, although after some time, one (but reportedly ONLY one) of the attorneys figured it out.
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/judge-holds-up-ipad-2-and-galaxy-tab-in-court-samsung-lawyers-cant-tell-the-difference-20111014/
"Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered first, stating she couldn’t from that distance, the other Samsung lawyers couldn’t either, but one at least did after some thought."
Want a different perspective?
http://www.cultofmac.com/123751/samsungs-lawyers-tell-judge-that-they-cant-tell-the-difference-between-an-ipad-and-a-galaxy-tab/
"According to this report U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked a Samsung attorney if he could tell which tablet was which.
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer."
Sorry, but you're absolutely refusing to consider obvious facts. How much is Samsung paying you?
Actually, I simply want you to back up the assertions that you make. You said (word for word):
"The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products"
So where are these court rulings that say that Apple was never making slavish copies of Apple products?
Oh, and btw, Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product. From the same article as above:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents," (noting that the subject in front of Koh at the time were design patents - which have to do with appearance rather than functionality.
You can paste another 20 links to the story if you feel inclined to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that this is anecdotal evidence, and not a 'decisive' indication of copying as you suggest. One thing that really got me scratching my head is you stated the lawyer should have said "Your Honor, it's too far away, can I come closer.", but how is that so different than what she actually said with "Not at this distance, your honor."?
You are once again giving WRONG information when you state that "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product." I love how you back this claim up by quoting some opinion in an article written 10/14/2011, when Koh's ruling for this case came out 12/3/2011, over 6 weeks later! I have a novel idea, why don't you actually reference the ruling itself, in which the preliminary injunction was DENIED because all 4 of Apple's allegations were not found to demonstrate both infringement and validity?
I understand that you feel Samsung copied Apple's IP, but do you really have to continue to present blatantly inaccurate information and distort facts to support your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
There you go blatantly distorting the facts again... Samsung's own attorney couldn't tell the difference from across a court room. Given enough distance, any two objects of similar size will be indistinguishable.
The point that others are making, and are supported by the majority of court case rulings, is that Samsung was NEVER making slavish copies of Apple products. Realizing this does not mean that someone is an "Apple-hater" as you claim, it simply means they are not a biased, blindly following lemming...
He is a anything-but-apple-hater and doesn't have any coherent argument so I wouldn't worry too much.
Or really? I wasn't aware that Apple had to fund their litigation by reducing their budget for new projects. They must not have enough operating cash if they are taking money away from new product development.
Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.
And, once again, none of these cases matters a whole heck of a lot. Apple got what it wanted. Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication. That is what Apple needed to do. The money is incidental.
I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, the case is not settled yet. Koh ruled that Samsung HAD copied Apple's products but that she would not issue an injunction until the validity of the patents was established. So copying has been established by a court while the injunction is still undecided.
No, copying will be established IF the patents are valid, you have to read better the ruling. It is comprensible that you claim that anybody copies Apple if you can't understand a simple ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Samsung has apparently decided that slavishly copying Apple's products is a losing game, at least if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't be more real
Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Actually it was settled and an injunction was not granted, now Apple has won an appeal, but still have to prove damages. The trick of holding up an iPad and a Galaxy Tab up to see if one can tell the difference is like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.
No, the trial hasn't started. The injunction wasn't granted because Judge Koh said that Apple patent was likely not valid, but Apple appealed and this decission was reversed and now has asked for the injunction.
So, the claim that court have stablished that Samsun has slavishly copied Apple is still false, because the trial hasn't finished and nothing has been stablished
I'm talking about the trial for the injunction (which was settled but then appealed) which has no bearing on the actual patents case. Judges rarely grant injunctions because while the offending product/device might be causing some harm to the plaintiff (Apple) granting an injunction would most certainly cause harm to the defendant (Samsung).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I gave you several citations to back my position. If those sources are incorrect, it's up to you to prove it.
I wasn't questioning the content or authenticity of your sources, I was questioning your representation and presentation of your sources. For example, you made a statement of "Koh DID rule that Samsung's product was too similar to Apple's product.", and then followed it up with a quote that was written 6 weeks prior to the actual ruling that APPEARED to support your 'factual' claim. That sourced article had nothing to do with the ruling, and you misrepresented it in your post.
Again...PLEASE stop distorting the facts in order to support of your position...
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
I said that Apple accomplished what has to be its main objective - it got Samsung to stop making slavish copies if the Galaxy SIII is any indication.
Here's an experiment.
Put an iPad next to a Samsung Tab (before all the legal battles).
Now, put a Galaxy SIII next to an iPhone 4s (after all the legal battles).
It is blatantly obvious that Samsung is not making their product look as much like Apple's product as they did before Apple sued them.
So where's the lie?
No, the matter was not settled. The injunction was not granted. The court stated that the Samsung product was a copy of the iPad, but declined granting the injunction until the patent validity was settled. There has not been a hearing yet on infringement (and won't be until the patent validity challenge is settled).
One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"
Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.
Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie?
jragosta, I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you always start with "Samsung copied Apple" as your axiom. With this being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible for you to envision a scenario where Samsung indeed copied from Apple, regardless of how far-fetched it may be.
In regards to your comments regarding "is it still copying, even if no patent is involved?", the answer is yes, with two similar products, it COULD indeed have been copied. However, that does not mean that it MUST have been copied. For example, what if there was a patent that was invalidated due to previous art? Who then was copied, the one with the patent, or the ones with the prior art? If a patent was invalidated due to being 'non-inventive' and obvious, was it still copying, even though the evolution was deemed 'obvious'?
The point that is being made, is that simply having two similar looking products does not necessarily imply "copying". Many design changes naturally take place during technology shifts, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some designs may come out looking similar. In fact, across many different consumer products you will see similarities across multiple brands.
I would gladly reconsider my position of giving Samsung the benefit of the doubt if something other than "they look similar" was shown to be the case. However, nothing significant has been proven in a court of law, with many allegations being dismissed.
And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied? And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?
Originally Posted by jragosta
And the fact that Judge Koh said that Samsung copied?
Judge Koh did not say that Samsung "copied", she said that it is very well possible that Samsung infringed, but she questioned the validity of Apple's patent. Did you read my previous comment about invalidated patents not necessarily implying copying??
Quote:
And the fact that the Samsung product is so similar that even the legal team couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet?
Are you seriously asking this? Did you even read my previous comment about "looking the same" not necessarily implying copying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's some of the strangest logic I've seen. So it's only possible to copy something if there is a valid patent covering it? If you make a unique product and I make an exact duplicate - even using your authentic product as a model - I'm not copying unless you have a patent?
Strangest logic? If IT is legal copy it, Samsung doesn't have to change anything and that is what you're saying. That according to court wins they have changed thirs phones and that is totally false
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're really confused. The judge indicated that the Samsung product was a close copy of Apple's. She just can't determine if it's an ILLEGAL copy until the patent validity is settled.
Instead of using a ridiculous argument, why not tell me what is wrong with what I said? Where's the lie
No, Judge Koh indicated that is LIKELY that Apple would win in the trial, totally different. I repeat, you have to read the court orders, not what some blogs say about it
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
One of the articles stated:
"It’s not surprising then, to hear that Judge Koh agreed that the Galaxy Tab infringed Appel’s iPad patents,"
Since we're talking about design patents, infringing means it's a copy.
Maybe you're confused by the fact that judges often make verbal statements before the written opinion is issued.
Again, you have to read what the judge have said, not what some blogger thinks she has said.