What about LG Prada? Wasn't that out before your beloved iPhone?
1. "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
- It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.
2. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.
Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.
1. "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
- It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.
2. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.
Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.
Cheers
Since you are talking about 'rapid prototyping', one would have to assume you are trying to imply that SuperJunior stated that Apple copied the LG Prada. That is not what he said. His comment was in response to elroth's claim that the iPhone was a "revolutionary new design". Considering a very similar looking phone won the iF Design Award months before the iPhone was announced, he is merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that claim.
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.
Does that still apply if the person who allegedly made the statement is unavailable to deny, verify, interpret or answer to it?
Not that is has any relevance to this case, at all.
Not that is has any relevance to this case, at all.
That is exactly the point of this article. It's irrelevant. Steve's opinion if he were alive is no more useful than now that he's dead. The sentiments have nothing to do with the issue at trial. The trial matter is whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents (and Samsung may try to prove the patents as invalid as a defense). Steve's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with those matters.
It's as if you were arrested for stealing my car and your defense was "He doesn't like my hair style, so I stole his car".
Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.
One person's opinion and statements about that opinion are not legal authority. And they have the bent of being hearsay since they are quotes from his biography and not from a video where we heard it ourselves.
THe case should be decided by the facts. Not by what folks think of what a now dead CEO said, regardless of which side you are taking (after all, allowing the statements could bias the jury against Google if they take the comments as fact)
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.
Perhaps not. It depends on the wording of the patent. Because it's possible that Google might specify themselves into a position where they can't sue Apple because Apple doesn't mean all those specifics and thus isn't using the same 'invention'
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".
no, none of the lawsuits (regarding the design) would have started if Samsung etc hadn't started putting out tablets and phones that looked like they put Apple's stuff on a copy machine.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
What about LG Prada? Wasn't that out before your beloved iPhone?
1. "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
- It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.
2. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.
Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt
1. "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
- It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2]Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.
2. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,[1] and released on June 29, 2007.
Given the timings, I concur with your admiration for Apple's technical development expertise and their splendid implementation of 'rapid prototyping'. Otherwise, you lack of understanding is quite invincible.
Cheers
Since you are talking about 'rapid prototyping', one would have to assume you are trying to imply that SuperJunior stated that Apple copied the LG Prada. That is not what he said. His comment was in response to elroth's claim that the iPhone was a "revolutionary new design". Considering a very similar looking phone won the iF Design Award months before the iPhone was announced, he is merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
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.
Does that still apply if the person who allegedly made the statement is unavailable to deny, verify, interpret or answer to it?
Not that is has any relevance to this case, at all.
Hearsay exceptions are fairly complicated. The relevant exceptions fall under here:
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/ctrules/evcom/EVC-60.htm
That is exactly the point of this article. It's irrelevant. Steve's opinion if he were alive is no more useful than now that he's dead. The sentiments have nothing to do with the issue at trial. The trial matter is whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents (and Samsung may try to prove the patents as invalid as a defense). Steve's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with those matters.
It's as if you were arrested for stealing my car and your defense was "He doesn't like my hair style, so I stole his car".
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.
No Apple's sole mission is to protect their IP from someone that is using it without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.
One person's opinion and statements about that opinion are not legal authority. And they have the bent of being hearsay since they are quotes from his biography and not from a video where we heard it ourselves.
THe case should be decided by the facts. Not by what folks think of what a now dead CEO said, regardless of which side you are taking (after all, allowing the statements could bias the jury against Google if they take the comments as fact)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
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.
Perhaps not. It depends on the wording of the patent. Because it's possible that Google might specify themselves into a position where they can't sue Apple because Apple doesn't mean all those specifics and thus isn't using the same 'invention'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
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".
no, none of the lawsuits (regarding the design) would have started if Samsung etc hadn't started putting out tablets and phones that looked like they put Apple's stuff on a copy machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
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.
Actually most folks are talking about the forced notice as the stupid part. Not the judgement.
I wonder when Samsung loses a case against Apple will they be forced to announce they loss in a similar way.