I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."
However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?
I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.
You are right that it's not as simple as I made out. I thought of some of the same objections to my argument after I made it. But I think culture has to play a part at some level.
Another thought is that the lawyer (who is likely American, I don't know), is grandstanding and throwing a lot of chaff in the air to distract. We have to remember that stupid, stupid, OJ Simpson trial where the jury turned out to be easily led by theatrics and conspiracy theories. This kind of smells similar.
I don't know anyone who didn't just laugh out loud at the stupidity of that "If it don't fit, you must acquit" crapola from Johnny Cochran, and the next day everyone where I work was talking about the absolute ridiculousness of the claim in a factual sense. Weeks later however, after the trial, when the jury was asked about what went through their minds, most of them thought that the glove thing was some kind of slam-dunk evidence-wise and didn't see it for the grandstanding that it was. Several of them said that this piece of theatrics accompanied by what was (to anyone with a modicum of intelligence), a ridiculous convoluted conspiracy theory where the police were out to get blacks and framed OJ, was the main reason for their not-guilty votes.
In other words, juries are dumb as bricks on average, and conspiracy theories are more popular than the facts. The lawyer may be playing to emotions here.
People of Asian descent, especially recent immigrants may have enough of a chip on their shoulder to buy into a conspiracy theory of that type although I don't know if there are any Asians on the jury. I understand they are quite the minority in the USA.
the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.
And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.
In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?
And who put the rare earth elements there in the first place? God! God is the real innovator!
Saying IF Sony made an iPhone, what would it look like is saying if Sony made something which they in fact had never made. Therefore, there's no copying a non-existent product.
Samsung is ridiculous, destroying documents and leaking court info. Are they trying to lose? How unethical. Obviously something to hide.
It's more like they have something to LOSE, in this case, a trial.
If this weak, forum-troll-grade argument was that important to their case, they are just grasping at straws to distract the jury from the obvious conclusion, really. That Samsung desperately wants their post-2007 phones and post-2010 tablets to look exactly like Apple's.
And while we're on the subject, how do you get reprimanded for releasing "evidence" that was not allowed as evidence in the court?
If I wasn't at work id quite happily get you those photos of Apple's prototypes a full year (some two years, I believe) before these sammy prototypes ever saw the light of day.
EDIT: anyone else notice the UX designs from samsung on those documents is called iReen?
the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.
And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.
In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?
what about the star that went supernova to create all the elements? who's the real innovator?
Since no one else posted this. Samsung designs BEFORE the iPhone was introduced. The evidence Judge Koh is afraid to let the jurors see.
I shouldn't be responding to this because I know you're just trolling but why wasn't Samsung able to get these submitted by the deadline? Presumably these are important documents. Why did Samsung wait to the last-minute to get them entered as evidence? And what exactly is the judge afraid of?
If it was the reverse the fandroids and Sammy tards would be claiming Apple made this stuff up, as they've already done with the prototypes that have come out.
The phone Apple is suing over is the Galaxy Ace Plus, which was released in 2012 and looks remarkably like the iPhone 3G. Anybody that's not blind can see it (and most reviews of the phone mention it). I think it's a stretch to suggest the phone below is just an evolution of concepts from 2006. And even if it was someone should have stopped it along the way and made something more original. At least with Apple 's purple prototype from 2005 you can see where the iPhone 4 came from.
Hah, reading you I understood his meaning.... Outapple, verb. "Create a revolutionary design and ecosystem which forces potential competitors to copy said design"
She won't let them see this either. Notice the "icon" area? Looks familiar, eh? Once again, before the iPhone was released.
Several problems with your argument:
1. These prototypes you keep showing are actually quite distinct from Apple's iPhone. All you're showing is that Samsung considered a wide range of possible ideas and then chose the one that looked the most like the iPhone. I'm not sure how that helps their case.
2. We don't know how early Samsung had access to Apple's iPhone design. With Google's Schmidt on Apple's board, it's possible that Samsung had some access to Apple's designs.
3. if Samsung had such clear evidence that they had the iPhone design before Apple, they should have submitted it to the court within the deadline. Samsung's disregard for court procedures is going to bite them in the rear.
4. I'm not sure about design patents. For utility patents, independent discovery is not a defense (it can eliminate punitive damages, though). I don't know the dates of the design patents, but if Samsung's prototypes were dated after the date of the patent application, they would still be in violation.
If I wasn't at work id quite happily get you those photos of Apple's prototypes a full year (some two years, I believe) before these sammy prototypes ever saw the light of day.
EDIT: anyone else notice the UX designs from samsung on those documents is called iReen?
O.k. I looked it up. So MAN hours is what a MAN can accomplish in an hours worth of work. (I know it sounded simple, so i assumed it meant something more than that.) That's rather denigrating... I do however agree if it's physical labor.
I think it's due to the word being translated from another language where a man can be either understood as a man, male, or a woman, female. Or maybe because the term man-hour predates legal work for women.
It's an interesting historical question, but probably not quite related to the thread. english.stackexchange.com is the place ^^
I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.
Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).
Big Bang is a consequence to variations in that-that-was-before-time-was, as explained on Dexter's Lab, so it's probably patented by Cartoon Networks Scientists already
Big Bang is a consequence to variations in that-that-was-before-time-was, as explained on Dexter's Lab, so it's probably patented by Cartoon Networks Scientists already
Ah, but time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so the concept of something predating the Big Bang is not possible.
Since no one else posted this. Samsung designs BEFORE the iPhone was introduced. The evidence Judge Koh is afraid to let the jurors see.
i think that ireen phone does not look like the iphone, and would have been a great andriod phone... but alas samsung does not know an original design that they come up with, because they copy all the time, so they "BLEW IT".
but those slides were probably a part of the briefing on the industrial espionage activities that Samsung had been performing...
perhaps SAMSUNG was not able to properly authenticate the slides that you have presented?...
and on another topic.... and perhaps SAMSUNG destroyed evidence, because they were copying someone else "who-if-found-out-would-have-gone-hardcore-nazi-on-them" (sorry for the nazi word... godwins law and all)
thus better to receive punishment from the legal system, then have to pay in blood (for copying).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
I agree with the overall assumption of cultural but not in this case. They are American lawyers being paid for council and representation. Any American lawyer should have (and may have), said "We don't do that here."
However your second paragraph quoted, it seems like a basic start. I'm only using a basic computer analogy here but when it doesn't start, check the plug. Then check something one the same circuit. Going a long way here but my point is start with the basics and graduate from there. The lawyers picked the jury so maybe none of them have owned an Apple or Samsung phone. Not unbelievable really, especially when I read about 'feature phones', and the new Android equivalent on this very site. So the lawyers would start with what a non-tech following individual would know, or rather wouldnt know. I mean, wouldn't you?
I'm only quoting and responding. I mean no disrespect.
You are right that it's not as simple as I made out. I thought of some of the same objections to my argument after I made it. But I think culture has to play a part at some level.
Another thought is that the lawyer (who is likely American, I don't know), is grandstanding and throwing a lot of chaff in the air to distract. We have to remember that stupid, stupid, OJ Simpson trial where the jury turned out to be easily led by theatrics and conspiracy theories. This kind of smells similar.
I don't know anyone who didn't just laugh out loud at the stupidity of that "If it don't fit, you must acquit" crapola from Johnny Cochran, and the next day everyone where I work was talking about the absolute ridiculousness of the claim in a factual sense. Weeks later however, after the trial, when the jury was asked about what went through their minds, most of them thought that the glove thing was some kind of slam-dunk evidence-wise and didn't see it for the grandstanding that it was. Several of them said that this piece of theatrics accompanied by what was (to anyone with a modicum of intelligence), a ridiculous convoluted conspiracy theory where the police were out to get blacks and framed OJ, was the main reason for their not-guilty votes.
In other words, juries are dumb as bricks on average, and conspiracy theories are more popular than the facts. The lawyer may be playing to emotions here.
People of Asian descent, especially recent immigrants may have enough of a chip on their shoulder to buy into a conspiracy theory of that type although I don't know if there are any Asians on the jury. I understand they are quite the minority in the USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
Good read, but seriously a pretty crazy post size wise? I think a link or two would have done just fine.
Tallest, now that everyone's read it? Can you shorten it? It's bigger than the originating article.
If he'd shortened it then we might not have got the part about the "Golfbag full of money" which is, in my opinion, priceless.
Golf bags stuffed with cash? Who does that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.
And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.
In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?
And who put the rare earth elements there in the first place? God! God is the real innovator!
Since no one else posted this. Samsung designs BEFORE the iPhone was introduced. The evidence Judge Koh is afraid to let the jurors see.
She won't let them see this either. Notice the "icon" area? Looks familiar, eh? Once again, before the iPhone was released.
And while we're on the subject, how do you get reprimanded for releasing "evidence" that was not allowed as evidence in the court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farkus
And while we're on the subject, how do you get reprimanded for releasing "evidence" that was not allowed as evidence in the court?
Perhaps you should study Procedural Law?
this is getting silly
It's more like they have something to LOSE, in this case, a trial.
If this weak, forum-troll-grade argument was that important to their case, they are just grasping at straws to distract the jury from the obvious conclusion, really. That Samsung desperately wants their post-2007 phones and post-2010 tablets to look exactly like Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farkus
And while we're on the subject, how do you get reprimanded for releasing "evidence" that was not allowed as evidence in the court?
If I wasn't at work id quite happily get you those photos of Apple's prototypes a full year (some two years, I believe) before these sammy prototypes ever saw the light of day.
EDIT: anyone else notice the UX designs from samsung on those documents is called iReen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"
What about the people who made the screws, plastic, metal and glass? That has to account for over 50% of the phone. Technically, Apple doesn't even own the iPhone.
And for Samsung, what about all the miners who dug up all that rare earth elements that makes up Samsung's electronics, "who's the real innovator?". It's the miners! The Chinese miners are the real innovators for every electronic device ever created.
In all seriousness, who writes this stuff for Samsung?
what about the star that went supernova to create all the elements? who's the real innovator?
If it was the reverse the fandroids and Sammy tards would be claiming Apple made this stuff up, as they've already done with the prototypes that have come out.
The phone Apple is suing over is the Galaxy Ace Plus, which was released in 2012 and looks remarkably like the iPhone 3G. Anybody that's not blind can see it (and most reviews of the phone mention it). I think it's a stretch to suggest the phone below is just an evolution of concepts from 2006. And even if it was someone should have stopped it along the way and made something more original. At least with Apple 's purple prototype from 2005 you can see where the iPhone 4 came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Out Apple Apple?
What does that even mean?
Hah, reading you I understood his meaning.... Outapple, verb. "Create a revolutionary design and ecosystem which forces potential competitors to copy said design"
Several problems with your argument:
1. These prototypes you keep showing are actually quite distinct from Apple's iPhone. All you're showing is that Samsung considered a wide range of possible ideas and then chose the one that looked the most like the iPhone. I'm not sure how that helps their case.
2. We don't know how early Samsung had access to Apple's iPhone design. With Google's Schmidt on Apple's board, it's possible that Samsung had some access to Apple's designs.
3. if Samsung had such clear evidence that they had the iPhone design before Apple, they should have submitted it to the court within the deadline. Samsung's disregard for court procedures is going to bite them in the rear.
4. I'm not sure about design patents. For utility patents, independent discovery is not a defense (it can eliminate punitive damages, though). I don't know the dates of the design patents, but if Samsung's prototypes were dated after the date of the patent application, they would still be in violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
If I wasn't at work id quite happily get you those photos of Apple's prototypes a full year (some two years, I believe) before these sammy prototypes ever saw the light of day.
EDIT: anyone else notice the UX designs from samsung on those documents is called iReen?
I read it "IReen", not iReen...
IR, as Infra Red...
Might be completely wrong about it though.
I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.
Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
O.k. I looked it up. So MAN hours is what a MAN can accomplish in an hours worth of work. (I know it sounded simple, so i assumed it meant something more than that.) That's rather denigrating... I do however agree if it's physical labor.
I think it's due to the word being translated from another language where a man can be either understood as a man, male, or a woman, female. Or maybe because the term man-hour predates legal work for women.
It's an interesting historical question, but probably not quite related to the thread. english.stackexchange.com is the place ^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.
Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).
Big Bang is a consequence to variations in that-that-was-before-time-was, as explained on Dexter's Lab, so it's probably patented by Cartoon Networks Scientists already
Ah, but time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so the concept of something predating the Big Bang is not possible.
i think that ireen phone does not look like the iphone, and would have been a great andriod phone... but alas samsung does not know an original design that they come up with, because they copy all the time, so they "BLEW IT".
but those slides were probably a part of the briefing on the industrial espionage activities that Samsung had been performing...
perhaps SAMSUNG was not able to properly authenticate the slides that you have presented?...
and on another topic.... and perhaps SAMSUNG destroyed evidence, because they were copying someone else "who-if-found-out-would-have-gone-hardcore-nazi-on-them" (sorry for the nazi word... godwins law and all)
thus better to receive punishment from the legal system, then have to pay in blood (for copying).