You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".
She said nothing that would indicate that everything Quinn has done is "good cause". Unlike you, this will be my last direction towards you since you are a worthless contributor to AI, and therefore belong on the block list with all the other trolls.
You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".
No. The judge did NOT rule on Quinn's argument. This Appleinsider post is plainly wrong. Anyone willing to pay $3 can go on PACER and review the docket. There is no such order by the judge. Appleinsider is quoting the wrong docket entry (they are quoting SAMSUNG's PROPOSED order).
No. The judge did NOT rule on Quinn's argument. This Appleinsider post is plainly wrong. Anyone willing to pay $3 can go on PACER and review the docket. There is no such order by the judge. Appleinsider is quoting the wrong docket entry (they are quoting SAMSUNG's PROPOSED order).
Calm down kid, take a deep breath. Okay now, you're just a little too excited. The world is not ending, you'll be fine.
You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".
No. The judge did NOT rule on Quinn's argument. This Appleinsider post is plainly wrong. Anyone willing to pay $3 can go on PACER and review the docket. There is no such order by the judge. Appleinsider is quoting the wrong docket entry (they are quoting SAMSUNG's PROPOSED order).
AI has now updated the story to reflect that tiny little subtlety.
It's hard to take anyone's comments seriously when they use cliché, unimaginative and silly terms like iSheep. I also can't stand people point out that the word anal is contained in the word analyst. There are plenty of others. I much prefer someone at least try to be original even if their attempt at being humorous of clever falls short.
Once upon a time posters used to be original but birds of a feather flock together, great minds think alike, and an original poster is hard to find these days.
Still, boys will be boys. Count your blessings, every cloud has a silver lining, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and, if at first you don't succeed, hope for the best and concentrate on just living happily ever after…
That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.
I'll take you up on that. Let's have a word for word "smack down". Who exactly is quite right here? (besides Sol).
We all know Apple wouldn't be where it is without looking to other companies for inspiration
So copying = innovation?
So why didn't other companies create the iPhone first if all they had to do was "look to other companies for inspiration?"
You're really in denial if you think iPhone and iPad didn't turn the smartphone and tablet markets upside down; as if they were just "inspired" by whatever crap came before it. You think iPhone was inspired by BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Nokia Symbian or Palm Treo? Really? Or is it more true that what came AFTER the iPhone was inspired by it?
So copying = innovation?
So why didn't other companies create the iPhone first if all they had to do was "look to other companies for inspiration?"
You're really in denial if you think iPhone and iPad didn't turn the smartphone and tablet markets upside down; as if they were just "inspired" by whatever crap came before it. You think iPhone was inspired by BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Nokia Symbian or Palm Treo? Really? Or is it more true that what came AFTER the iPhone was inspired by it?
This is my favorite. Very recent and objective. I even looked him up to make sure he wasn't a Microsoft hater before I read it.
This fanatics are really like those sports-fan freaks. Cheering endlessly, defending, bragging a victory if their team won or something AS IF they contribute to make their team win. Although, I'll understand if they're at least a waterboy or towel handler that did really something to the team to equate their happiness.
I am not a lawyer, but isn't it a perfect prior art for the design patent Apple registered?
The Apple patent here is nothing more than simple drawing with a brief description. It was not a product or alike, not even possible to have since the technology was not upto it. (iPad came out six years after the patent was issued)
Again I am not a lawyer, but I think the Judge made a mistake or instructed or consulted by someone?
Comments
Samsung's Motion to Strike can be read here:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1549.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.
You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".
She said nothing that would indicate that everything Quinn has done is "good cause". Unlike you, this will be my last direction towards you since you are a worthless contributor to AI, and therefore belong on the block list with all the other trolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
Sigh. Look at my posting history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.
More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".
No. The judge did NOT rule on Quinn's argument. This Appleinsider post is plainly wrong. Anyone willing to pay $3 can go on PACER and review the docket. There is no such order by the judge. Appleinsider is quoting the wrong docket entry (they are quoting SAMSUNG's PROPOSED order).
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell
No. The judge did NOT rule on Quinn's argument. This Appleinsider post is plainly wrong. Anyone willing to pay $3 can go on PACER and review the docket. There is no such order by the judge. Appleinsider is quoting the wrong docket entry (they are quoting SAMSUNG's PROPOSED order).
Calm down kid, take a deep breath. Okay now, you're just a little too excited. The world is not ending, you'll be fine.
Just goes to show - it doesn't matter who you are, you have to use the /s, however obvious it may seem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yup, the little critters are out and about....
I thought I smelled a putrid aroma comparable to a damp, smelly, basement occupied by grown men awaiting dinner from their mommy.
AI has now updated the story to reflect that tiny little subtlety.
Thank goodness AI is not a scratch and sniff website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's hard to take anyone's comments seriously when they use cliché, unimaginative and silly terms like iSheep. I also can't stand people point out that the word anal is contained in the word analyst. There are plenty of others. I much prefer someone at least try to be original even if their attempt at being humorous of clever falls short.
Once upon a time posters used to be original but birds of a feather flock together, great minds think alike, and an original poster is hard to find these days.
Still, boys will be boys. Count your blessings, every cloud has a silver lining, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and, if at first you don't succeed, hope for the best and concentrate on just living happily ever after…
I'll take you up on that. Let's have a word for word "smack down". Who exactly is quite right here? (besides Sol).
If I may, I think you're leaving the majority of the population out.
So copying = innovation?
So why didn't other companies create the iPhone first if all they had to do was "look to other companies for inspiration?"
You're really in denial if you think iPhone and iPad didn't turn the smartphone and tablet markets upside down; as if they were just "inspired" by whatever crap came before it. You think iPhone was inspired by BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Nokia Symbian or Palm Treo? Really? Or is it more true that what came AFTER the iPhone was inspired by it?
Sad state of affair in the US where the lawyers can act with impunity and with no regards to the law of the land.
This is my favorite. Very recent and objective. I even looked him up to make sure he wasn't a Microsoft hater before I read it.
http://m.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer
Trying to submit devices featured in science-fiction movies as evidence?
http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue-2001-a-space-odyssey-renders-apple-patents-invalid/
I dunno, seems like a bit of a reach to me.
This fanatics are really like those sports-fan freaks. Cheering endlessly, defending, bragging a victory if their team won or something AS IF they contribute to make their team win. Although, I'll understand if they're at least a waterboy or towel handler that did really something to the team to equate their happiness.
Good article! A bit of a long read, but I enjoyed it.
I am not a lawyer, but isn't it a perfect prior art for the design patent Apple registered?
The Apple patent here is nothing more than simple drawing with a brief description. It was not a product or alike, not even possible to have since the technology was not upto it. (iPad came out six years after the patent was issued)
Again I am not a lawyer, but I think the Judge made a mistake or instructed or consulted by someone?