Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.
Undeserving of your name, I have since labeled you a troll.
I could post quite a few examples, but I'll leave that to the more savvy people on this forum.
However, I would like to point out to everyone who says "Notification Center", please take a look at androids use of 'folders'.
So maybe they "borrowed" from each other. So what will Apple do when the 'reckoning' comes on 'Notification Center'? Pull out the angelic 'folders' card? That should be a good read...
I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case. Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way. Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.
What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal. Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark. Neither side won, neither side lost per se. But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control. Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance. Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.
BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me. I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.
Wow, Apple is amazing! Even android fanboys own a significant amount of Apple products.
<span style="line-height:normal;">Isaacson may well have everything Jobs said to him on tape, so it may well be provable that he said it.</span>
That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.
What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Similar doesn't mean copy. That is the problem with design patents. Looks don't always go hand in hand with functionality, especially with electronics.
Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.
Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.
There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule. One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests. Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:
An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.
Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance. Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
I'm not sure that "the sheer multitude of Android devices" has anything to do with it.
Android is killing Apple in the cellphone market, but in tablets, not so much. And yet, there are a multitude of Android tablets.
Why do people prefer Android phones, but also prefer Apple tablets?
I don't think that the multitude of Android devices is a good reason.
There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule. One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests. Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:
<span style="font-family:verdana, arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:16.66666603088379px;">An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.</span>
That exception can only be used if the testimony is relevant to the subject being heard. Unfortunately, as Koh ruled, Jobs' opinions on the matter have absolutely no relevance at all to the question of whether Samsung illegally infringed Apple's design patents.
Will be LMAO if Apple loses this case as well. Who you all gonna blame then - the mafia, immigrants, socialists, Obama, CNN, Canada ? LOL
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.
What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.
Not related?
None of the patent lawsuits would have been started had it not been for his inclination to go on a fit for "ste_aling" his ideas, the first of which is the design "patent" followed by other software "patents".
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
What about the Apple fans who are calling the decision by a UK judge for Apple to post a statement saying Samsung did not copy its designs?
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
Not sure the London Olympics can be a failure before it's even started. But I take your point we are laughing at them to. Wait until it rains every day and then yeah maybe. I hate London - it's dirty, smelly, noisy, expensive and full of arrogant cockneys, hooray henrys and rich bankers. Fortunately I live a long way from London.
No idea what you are referring to re Vancouver. I haven't seen any news about Canada for a while on the UK news channels. Why what happened? Are your health and safety people still training people to walk up stairs or was that just a joke for the Queen?
None of the patent lawsuits would have been started had it not been for his inclination to go on a fit for "ste_aling" his ideas, the first of which is the design "patent" followed by other software "patents".
So what?
Either the suit has merit or it doesn't. His reasons for filing the suit doesn't change the merits of the case.
Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?
So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.
When it's a revolutionary new design it would be easier to patent. Then when you throw in the nearly identical icons and layout of the home screen, the click to unlock, scrolling behaviour, and the way the OS works (a revolutionary new OS design from Apple), plus the obvious fact that Samsung phones, even their pre-announced phones, looked like Blackberries, then all of a sudden those phones were cancelled and Samsung produced iPhone copies instead, you kind of have more of a case. Still, this particular case revolves around a few specific patent violations, which Samsung may be able to obfuscate away.
When it's a revolutionary new design it would be easier to patent. Then when you throw in the nearly identical icons and layout of the home screen, the click to unlock, scrolling behaviour, and the way the OS works (a revolutionary new OS design from Apple), plus the obvious fact that Samsung phones, even their pre-announced phones, looked like Blackberries, then all of a sudden those phones were cancelled and Samsung produced iPhone copies instead, you kind of have more of a case. Still, this particular case revolves around a few specific patent violations, which Samsung may be able to obfuscate away.
What about LG Prada? Wasn't that out before your beloved iPhone?
Sadly, arrogant Apple is not going to lose this case.
It is very, very obvious that this "judge" is biased.
If you call Apple "arrogant," your concept of what constitutes "neutral" in this case is biased against Apple. This makes your claim of the judge's "bias" suspect.
If you call Apple "arrogant," your concept of what constitutes "neutral" in this case is biased against Apple. This makes your claim of the judge's "bias" suspect.
True, I don't like Apple anymore, but I am not a judge, just a consumer who sees his freedom trampled on by Apple.
True, I don't like Apple anymore, but I am not a judge, just a consumer who sees his freedom trampled on by Apple.
Really? What freedom has Apple trampled on?
Oh, I suppose you could argue that your freedom to buy a slavish copy of Apple's products might be hindered somewhat, but that's not a legitimate freedom, anyway. So be specific- which of your freedoms has Apple taken away and how?
Comments
Undeserving of your name, I have since labeled you a troll.
I could post quite a few examples, but I'll leave that to the more savvy people on this forum.
However, I would like to point out to everyone who says "Notification Center", please take a look at androids use of 'folders'.
So maybe they "borrowed" from each other. So what will Apple do when the 'reckoning' comes on 'Notification Center'? Pull out the angelic 'folders' card? That should be a good read...
Will be LMAO if Apple loses this case as well. Who you all gonna blame then - the mafia, immigrants, socialists, Obama, CNN, Canada ? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case. Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way. Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.
What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal. Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark. Neither side won, neither side lost per se. But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control. Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance. Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.
BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me. I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.
Wow, Apple is amazing! Even android fanboys own a significant amount of Apple products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.
Isaacson may well have everything Jobs said to him on tape, so it may well be provable that he said it.
That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.
What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.
There are exceptions to the general hearsay rule. One such exception is for admissions against one's own interests. Steve's statement wasn't deemed admissible under this exception, but my guess is that Samsung tried to use the exception:
An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance. Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
I'm not sure that "the sheer multitude of Android devices" has anything to do with it.
Android is killing Apple in the cellphone market, but in tablets, not so much. And yet, there are a multitude of Android tablets.
Why do people prefer Android phones, but also prefer Apple tablets?
I don't think that the multitude of Android devices is a good reason.
Apple is starting to fall behind..lol ...what is your prefered choice of smoke ? crack ?
That exception can only be used if the testimony is relevant to the subject being heard. Unfortunately, as Koh ruled, Jobs' opinions on the matter have absolutely no relevance at all to the question of whether Samsung illegally infringed Apple's design patents.
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That doesn't make it admissible. Under American law, it would still be hearsay since you can't cross-examine Jobs to see if it was really him (and not a doctored tape) or if it was taken out of context. There are times when a statement from a dead person can be used, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with whether the tape is admissible or not. Koh ruled that Samsung can't bring the issue up because it's a red herring - it has nothing to do with the subject of the trial. Again, either Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents or it didn't. Jobs' feelings about Samsung are totally irrelevant.
What Samsung is attempting to do is like someone who is on trial for stealing your car trying to defend themselves by saying "I was wearing red sneakers and you have publicly stated that you don't like red sneakers". The statement might be true - you might really dislike red sneakers and want to use a thermonuclear option to get rid of all red sneakers on the market, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they stole your car or not.
Then it's a good thing that design patents have nothing to do with functionality. The two are completely unrelated.
Not related?
None of the patent lawsuits would have been started had it not been for his inclination to go on a fit for "ste_aling" his ideas, the first of which is the design "patent" followed by other software "patents".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
What about the Apple fans who are calling the decision by a UK judge for Apple to post a statement saying Samsung did not copy its designs?
Last I checked here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151360/uk-judge-rules-apple-must-advertise-samsung-did-not-copy-the-ipad
I already spot three people voicing their opinions of this decision as "stupid".
Point is, it goes both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Well, we know who the idiots will blame when Apple wins. It will be the usual "the judge was bribed" or "the judge is an Apple user". Or the popular fallback "the judge is stupid".
BTW, I'm enjoying the failure that is the London Olympics. After listening to the British media in Vanvouver slamming Canadians its going to be fun returning the favor. Only difference is we'll have something legitimate to complain about, unlike 2010.
Not sure the London Olympics can be a failure before it's even started. But I take your point we are laughing at them to. Wait until it rains every day and then yeah maybe. I hate London - it's dirty, smelly, noisy, expensive and full of arrogant cockneys, hooray henrys and rich bankers. Fortunately I live a long way from London.
No idea what you are referring to re Vancouver. I haven't seen any news about Canada for a while on the UK news channels. Why what happened? Are your health and safety people still training people to walk up stairs or was that just a joke for the Queen?
So what?
Either the suit has merit or it doesn't. His reasons for filing the suit doesn't change the merits of the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?
So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.
When it's a revolutionary new design it would be easier to patent. Then when you throw in the nearly identical icons and layout of the home screen, the click to unlock, scrolling behaviour, and the way the OS works (a revolutionary new OS design from Apple), plus the obvious fact that Samsung phones, even their pre-announced phones, looked like Blackberries, then all of a sudden those phones were cancelled and Samsung produced iPhone copies instead, you kind of have more of a case. Still, this particular case revolves around a few specific patent violations, which Samsung may be able to obfuscate away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Will be LMAO if Apple loses this case as well. Who you all gonna blame then - the mafia, immigrants, socialists, Obama, CNN, Canada ? LOL
Sadly, arrogant Apple is not going to lose this case.
It is very, very obvious that this "judge" is biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
When it's a revolutionary new design it would be easier to patent. Then when you throw in the nearly identical icons and layout of the home screen, the click to unlock, scrolling behaviour, and the way the OS works (a revolutionary new OS design from Apple), plus the obvious fact that Samsung phones, even their pre-announced phones, looked like Blackberries, then all of a sudden those phones were cancelled and Samsung produced iPhone copies instead, you kind of have more of a case. Still, this particular case revolves around a few specific patent violations, which Samsung may be able to obfuscate away.
What about LG Prada? Wasn't that out before your beloved iPhone?
If you call Apple "arrogant," your concept of what constitutes "neutral" in this case is biased against Apple. This makes your claim of the judge's "bias" suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If you call Apple "arrogant," your concept of what constitutes "neutral" in this case is biased against Apple. This makes your claim of the judge's "bias" suspect.
True, I don't like Apple anymore, but I am not a judge, just a consumer who sees his freedom trampled on by Apple.
Really? What freedom has Apple trampled on?
Oh, I suppose you could argue that your freedom to buy a slavish copy of Apple's products might be hindered somewhat, but that's not a legitimate freedom, anyway. So be specific- which of your freedoms has Apple taken away and how?