So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court. It is simple not fair. Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.
Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple. Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent. Hilarious.
You have to be kidding, or trolling.
Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.
Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.
Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.
Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.
If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway. Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge. How would it be fair?
Samsung just gets more and more ridiculous. I can't wait for the Samsungistas to argue how this is proof that Apple hasn't created anything and how the Judge is biased.
Seriously f'n weak. Samsung is paying their lawyers $821 an hour to scrape the Internet forums and collect troll arguments to present in court. First "Apple don't own rectangles" then "Apple's fake Sony design sketch proves it steals from Sony, even though it doesn't" and now "2001: A Space Odyssey = prior art."
Oh, and BTW, isn't it interesting that she was the greatest judge on the planet when she initially ruled in Samsung's favor and only became incompetent and biased when she ruled against Samsung?
If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway. Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge. How would it be fair?
Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.
Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.
Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.
Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.
You do not have to wait me replying you. If you can not see that yourself, then I do not have anything to show you since, I think, you are blind.
I examined the movie 2001 space odyssey and never during the time when the two actors are looking at the mentioned pad like device did they use a stylus or touch the screen to control the unit. Also there was no indicator of any such logo indicating a ownership to design such as RCA Magnavox or Zenith who were huge in the television age at that time.
Samsung is grasping at straws to try and delay so they can sell their units during this whole proceeding.
I think maybe we could look at this from an automobile perspective.
Henry Ford made the first mass produced automobile. He made automobiles before the Model T but the Model T changed the whole concept of what an Automobile was. The Cell Phone was around long before the iPhone existed. But the iPhone changed the whole concept of what a cell phone was (smart phone) and what it could do. Apple was that company to change the whole concept of a cell phone and its capabilities. Yet Samsung argues that Apple stole the design of the iPad. Yet the iPad is basically a large iPhone. Tablets were around before the iPad. But Apple revolutionized the pad by designing the iPad. Same thing as the Henry Ford Model T. Apple should not be penalized for being able to create a better pad or cell phone. If Samsung complains then thats their problem. Samsung needs to be original and make a product that is revolutionizing to an industry. Thats what they did with the LCD TV and LED TV.
If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway. Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge. How would it be fair?
How would it be crucial?
The judge is doing Samsung a favor by forcing them to exclude their weakest arguments. Noli equi dentes inspicere donati.
So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court. It is simple not fair. Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.
Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple. Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent. Hilarious.
At this point, it is a procedural issue. Samsung was late in presenting it, so it was excluded.
The Appeals Courts deal with procedural issues as a matter of course. They might order a new trial with the understanding that the excluded evidence be allowed. Or the Appeals Court could side with Koh and let things stand. But that's way in the future, if at all.
I get a kick out of the idea that Samsung's layers are so brazen/amoral/stupid as to pretend that a special effect for a movie can even be considered as "prior art." By definition prior art has to be evidence of the existence of an actual invention (or design—this case is so screwed, it's hard to tell what they think the 2001 Space Odyssey indicates prior art of.) In any case prior art along these lines would have to be a record of a working prototype, or a detailed description of the design or invention (akin to a patent document.)
A scene from 2001 Space Odyssey could never meet the standard of "prior art" for any of the patents Apple feels has been infringed. It could be used as prior art if someone simply tried to patent the idea of a tablet computer or a flat display, but that's about it.
I suppose Apple could just drop the bomb and reveal the NEWTON in court. Grid style launch screen. Check. Dock at bottom. Check. Rectangular. Check. Touch input. Check.
Samsung looking for anything that is rectangular with a screen now? Shameless.
Samsung sure seems to be so obsessed with trying to find problems with apples originality that they are leaving themselves open for the big question:
Where is yours?
NO mockups. Design exercizes. Etc.
Just more and more of Apple.
And then Samsung "leaks" items to the press? Especially after it was proven erroneous?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court. It is simple not fair. Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.
Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple. Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent. Hilarious.
You have to be kidding, or trolling.
Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.
Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
"Samsung tries to invalidate Apple's localization patents"
Next up -- the "retina display" at Lascaux:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
You have to be kidding, or trolling.
Samsung's lawyers didn't get their evidence admitted because they were late. They've had a year to get ready for this case and have nobody to blame but themselves. As to prior art, there's no valid reason to admit the ridiculous evidence Samsung tried.
Only thing hilarious is your complete mis-understanding of what's going on. No, it's not hilarious, Pathetic might be a better word.
If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway. Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge. How would it be fair?
Seriously f'n weak. Samsung is paying their lawyers $821 an hour to scrape the Internet forums and collect troll arguments to present in court. First "Apple don't own rectangles" then "Apple's fake Sony design sketch proves it steals from Sony, even though it doesn't" and now "2001: A Space Odyssey = prior art."
I guess they are counting on a dumb jury.
What a pathetic company, with its pathetic bunch of spokespeople like DaHarder, Gatorguy, JerrySwitched!
Whatever makes them happy, I guess. Ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The facts have a pro-Apple bias.
*shrugs*
That just about says it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
Hilarious.
Glad this is giving you a good laugh!
Join in!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Glad this is giving you a good laugh!
Join in!!
Why not, it is better than the Olympic. Hahaha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, and BTW, isn't it interesting that she was the greatest judge on the planet when she initially ruled in Samsung's favor and only became incompetent and biased when she ruled against Samsung?
You still crack me up. Keep 'em coming!
Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.
Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat
and AI should consider DaHarder to recuse him/herself for the same reason hehe
Good one. I bet even DaHarder got a chuckle out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Most of the evidence that was rejected was rejected because Samsung did not meet the filing deadlines. That's not judicial bias, it's just gross negilgence on the part of Samsung's attorney.
Another large portion of evidence was rejected because it was totally irrelevant. Samsung is being accused of copying Apple's IP. Even if Samsung could prove that Apple had copied someone else's IP at some time, that would not absolve Samsung, so that, too, is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to show where there's an obvious bias. Keep in mind that the fact that you don't like the conclusions does not constitute a bias.
You do not have to wait me replying you. If you can not see that yourself, then I do not have anything to show you since, I think, you are blind.
I examined the movie 2001 space odyssey and never during the time when the two actors are looking at the mentioned pad like device did they use a stylus or touch the screen to control the unit. Also there was no indicator of any such logo indicating a ownership to design such as RCA Magnavox or Zenith who were huge in the television age at that time.
Samsung is grasping at straws to try and delay so they can sell their units during this whole proceeding.
I think maybe we could look at this from an automobile perspective.
Henry Ford made the first mass produced automobile. He made automobiles before the Model T but the Model T changed the whole concept of what an Automobile was. The Cell Phone was around long before the iPhone existed. But the iPhone changed the whole concept of what a cell phone was (smart phone) and what it could do. Apple was that company to change the whole concept of a cell phone and its capabilities. Yet Samsung argues that Apple stole the design of the iPad. Yet the iPad is basically a large iPhone. Tablets were around before the iPad. But Apple revolutionized the pad by designing the iPad. Same thing as the Henry Ford Model T. Apple should not be penalized for being able to create a better pad or cell phone. If Samsung complains then thats their problem. Samsung needs to be original and make a product that is revolutionizing to an industry. Thats what they did with the LCD TV and LED TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway. Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge. How would it be fair?
How would it be crucial?
The judge is doing Samsung a favor by forcing them to exclude their weakest arguments. Noli equi dentes inspicere donati.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
So, basically all evidence of prior art re Apple patents are excluded by the Judge in the court. It is simple not fair. Yes, I think, the Judge has already made herself it to be a mistrial.
Samsung can not present crucial evidence that they did not copy Apple. Samsung could not present perfect and legitimate prior art evidence against Apple patent. Hilarious.
At this point, it is a procedural issue. Samsung was late in presenting it, so it was excluded.
The Appeals Courts deal with procedural issues as a matter of course. They might order a new trial with the understanding that the excluded evidence be allowed. Or the Appeals Court could side with Koh and let things stand. But that's way in the future, if at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What a pathetic company, with its pathetic bunch of spokespeople like DaHarder, Gatorguy, JerrySwitched!
Whatever makes them happy, I guess. Ugh.
I'm a friggin spokesperson for Samsung now?
Get a grip.
So you don't have any evidence or rational arguments.
Figures.
I get a kick out of the idea that Samsung's layers are so brazen/amoral/stupid as to pretend that a special effect for a movie can even be considered as "prior art." By definition prior art has to be evidence of the existence of an actual invention (or design—this case is so screwed, it's hard to tell what they think the 2001 Space Odyssey indicates prior art of.) In any case prior art along these lines would have to be a record of a working prototype, or a detailed description of the design or invention (akin to a patent document.)
A scene from 2001 Space Odyssey could never meet the standard of "prior art" for any of the patents Apple feels has been infringed. It could be used as prior art if someone simply tried to patent the idea of a tablet computer or a flat display, but that's about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
I'm a friggin spokesperson for Samsung now?
Actually, you're worse.
But let's leave it as is.
I suppose Apple could just drop the bomb and reveal the NEWTON in court. Grid style launch screen. Check. Dock at bottom. Check.
Rectangular. Check. Touch input. Check.
Samsung looking for anything that is rectangular with a screen now? Shameless.
Samsung sure seems to be so obsessed with trying to find problems with apples originality that they are leaving themselves open for the big question:
Where is yours?
NO mockups. Design exercizes. Etc.
Just more and more of Apple.
And then Samsung "leaks" items to the press? Especially after it was proven erroneous?
Wow. No respect for that.
I have a Samsung HDTV in my house.
It will be the last Samsung device I buy.
They need to shape up.