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.
Can I ask why you don't seem to take any issue when it goes the other way? I mean it's not like terms like "fandroid" or "Micro$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?
Once upon a time posters used to be original but birds of a feather flock together, great minds think alike, and an original poster is hard to find these days ...
... since the internet was overrun by paid astroturfers.
Looks like Samsung has their army of trolls commenting on this site. Seriously why would anyone but an Apple fan be on Apple insider? I personally spend ZERO time on Google fan sites....actually I don't even bother to look if there are any.
I'll never have a Samsucks product in my home and wish Apple and others would source other component suppliers.
Can I ask why you don't seem to take any issue when it goes the other way? I mean it's not like terms like "fandroid" or "Micro$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?
1) He has.
2) This is not a MS or Android site. Childish bashing is to be expected on the internet...at least they aren't trolling MS and Android sites. It is sad and makes the poster look like a childish idiot but they typically aren't bothering anyone too much because this is an Apple fan site. If I were a mod I'd give them a minor infraction and ask them to grow up because it does make everyone else here look bad too.
3) Because there have been lots of trolls poisoning this site. Any idiot with less that 10 posts and uses terms like iSheep is either a troll or an idiot. If I were a mod I'd simply banhammer them because it is highly unlikely they will ever be a net positive on the forum.
Seriously, would anyone normally go to an Apple users group meeting and start yammering about iSheep and Apple fanbois because "that's the common term"? What would you call this person? Asshat comes to mind. Same for any idiot that goes to an Android users group meeting and crow about the superiority of iPhones and yammer about fandroids. Nobody does this in person because everyone knows this is insanely rude. Anyone who would do it in an internet forum is one worth banning. Disagreement is fine. Asshattery is not.
4) If you don't like it, stop reading the site because all the freaking articles are this way too. Ars writing is better anyway and more balanced than DEDs (hard not to be). This is effing AppleInsider not BalancedInsider. That apologists exist here in greater numbers is to be expected and while mildly annoying they aren't here to troll or be assholes.
Looks like Samsung has their army of trolls commenting on this site. Seriously why would anyone but an Apple fan be on Apple insider? I personally spend ZERO time on Google fan sites....actually I don't even bother to look if there are any.
I'll never have a Samsucks product in my home and wish Apple and others would source other component suppliers.
I wouldn't say it's all bad, though my year old 55" Sammy is dying already...I own a few android products...it's only taken years to finally be usable.
Though this is a case of Apple vs Samsung what really is on trial is the US Patent System and the Judge.
Considering the 4 design patents that Apple is asserting it highlights that something is seriously wrong with the patent system where you can patent rounded corners and flat design as "ornamental" ie have no functional puprose.
The two iPhone design patents include placement of the iPhone’s round “home” button, rounded corners, edge-to-edge glass and “uncluttered” front of the iPhone.
The iOS design patent addresses the grid layout of icons in iOS - along with the bottom dock where staple applications like the phone, browser and messages live. From a design perspective, that is very simple to understand.
The iPad patent, like the two from the iPhone, has to do with the shape and size of the device. A thin bezel and minimal aesthetics of the front and back are the primary aspects.
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
“front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone…”
and
“overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear… and profiles that are not thin”.
Of course. Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head. They’ll no doubt appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through their opaque screen. No functional drawbacks there.
Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants? Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.
Looks like Samsung has their army of trolls commenting on this site. Seriously why would anyone but an Apple fan be on Apple insider? I personally spend ZERO time on Google fan sites....actually I don't even bother to look if there are any.
I'll never have a Samsucks product in my home and wish Apple and others would source other component suppliers.
The TVs are nice but I tend to buy LGs. I have their washer dryer.
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?
Well, the judge is a lawyer, and she seems to disagree. Perhaps it's because Samsung appears to be throwing ANYTHING out there and claiming it looks like an iPad/iPhone, when it clearly doesn't. If the judge allowed them this blanket definition of prior art, then just about every patent could be invalidated simply by trawling through sci-fi movies. Her argument could be that prior art has to actually exist.
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.
Why is it I can look at the HTC One S and see it is a clearly different phone than any iPhone? Or the Droid Razr? Or the Evo? Or the Palm Pre? Why aren't these guys getting sued for these handsets despite rounded corners, etc?
Why is it only the Samsung handsets being objected to are ones clearly designed to look like the iPhone?
"According to the USPTO, “the design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features.”"
That's a quote from your article. Don't tell me that the appearance of the iPhone is not distinctive and that is exactly what Apple is protecting with design patents. All of these other phones are also ergonomic, not bumpy, not thick and fit perfectly well in pants.
If Apple was suing EVERY company with rounded corners, clean face, etc then I would be inclined to state that Apple was abusing their design patents and the patent system was broken. In THIS case any normal person would look at the hordes of Android phones and pick out those Samsung handsets and think "Wow...that's a pretty blatant copy of the iPhone".
And any site claiming to be concerned about patents and not giving Google grief for using FRAND patents offensively is obviously biased.
Well, the judge is a lawyer, and she seems to disagree. Perhaps it's because Samsung appears to be throwing ANYTHING out there and claiming it looks like an iPad/iPhone, when it clearly doesn't. If the judge allowed them this blanket definition of prior art, then just about every patent could be invalidated simply by trawling through sci-fi movies. Her argument could be that prior art has to actually exist.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.
Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat.
Welcome to the site. It is always fun to meet new trolls. You have an excellent command of iSheep usage. Very Clever. No one here has ever seen that before. Do you work for Samsung directly or is a PR site running you guys? Which freelance site do they have the ads on? Is this an Amazon turk thing maybe? How much do you make per post? Inquiring iSheep want to know.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.
Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
You may have noticed this trial is taking place in the US.
Well, the judge is a lawyer, and she seems to disagree. Perhaps it's because Samsung appears to be throwing ANYTHING out there and claiming it looks like an iPad/iPhone, when it clearly doesn't. If the judge allowed them this blanket definition of prior art, then just about every patent could be invalidated simply by trawling through sci-fi movies. Her argument could be that prior art has to actually exist.
Also important to note. Two Judges made the same ruling. I am willing to stipulate two federal judges handling patent cases know a lot more about prior art than anyone who has ever posted on this forum.
Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat.
I'm puzzled about those that don't use merit and are simply 'pro Korean Samsung and anti American Apple', no questions asked. Are all these pro Korean folks that are in America of Korean descent (in which case I can understand their bias) or are they simply anti American? Many are obviously here in America, hence my puzzlement. Or could it be they are simply the left overs from the once pro Microsoft anti Apple folks that have no where else to turn but to foreign manufacturers now? I assume all the Sammyfans here in the States are booing when the USA teams win too.
Welcome to the site. It is always fun to meet new trolls. You have an excellent command of iSheep usage. Very Clever. No one here has ever seen that before. Do you work for Samsung directly or is a PR site running you guys? Which freelance site do they have the ads on? Is this an Amazon turk thing maybe? How much do you make per post? Inquiring iSheep want to know.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.
Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
mmmm... yes I think there are some rulings in Kazakhstan too that might be researched oh and one I recall in Botswana ... oh wait a minute, this is an American court isn't it?
mmmm... yes I think there are some rulings in Kazakhstan too that might be researched oh and one I recall in Botswana ... oh wait a minute, this is an American court isn't it?
Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.
Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.
Actually I am a lawyer and have expressed my opinion on a previous post. People constantly mix up the substance of the case with the procedural issues of the case. All I am going to say is that the Samsung legal team and in particular their lead lawyer is playing a dangerous game in seemingly antagonizing the judge every chance they get which in my experience is not smart regardless of the validity of your case. Apple on the other hand asked for the moon in response to Samsung releasing that rejected evidence to the public. Ask for sanctions fine but don't ask for the case to be decided in your favor based on what is essentially a procedural issue. That was more than a stretch. In a trial you have to cast a wide net with caution. Too wide and the judge will start to be less amenable to your arguments. Always remember that a trial is made up of personalities, especially a jury trial. People act unpredictably which is why I believe that this case will be settled before it gets to jury deliberations. The commercial risk is too large on either side.
You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.
The story has been updated.
Update: This story has been revised to reflect that Samsung filed a PROPOSED order. Previously the order was presented as a signed judgment.
You are quoting Samsung's lawyers, not the Judge. The Judge has not ruled on the motion for sanctions yet. One of the other people in this thread had already pointed that out, but you chose to ignore them. Sometimes it is not just being able to read, but recognizing someone else might be using a more reliable source (As the other poster indicated).
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?
The patent you are referring to is a design patent. It doesn't need to have more than a 'simple drawing with a brief description'.
And, yes, Samsung is free to bring up real prior art. Science fiction is not prior art - that's why it's called 'fiction'. More importantly, the 2001 slate is nothing like the iPad, anyway.
Though this is a case of Apple vs Samsung what really is on trial is the US Patent System and the Judge.
Considering the 4 design patents that Apple is asserting it highlights that something is seriously wrong with the patent system where you can patent rounded corners and flat design as "ornamental" ie have no functional puprose.
Well, fortunately, that's not what Apple is claiming. Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.
The two iPhone design patents include placement of the iPhone’s round “home” button, rounded corners, edge-to-edge glass and “uncluttered” front of the iPhone.
The iOS design patent addresses the grid layout of icons in iOS - along with the bottom dock where staple applications like the phone, browser and messages live. From a design perspective, that is very simple to understand.
The iPad patent, like the two from the iPhone, has to do with the shape and size of the device. A thin bezel and minimal aesthetics of the front and back are the primary aspects.
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
“front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone…”
and
“overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear… and profiles that are not thin”.
Of course. Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head. They’ll no doubt appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through their opaque screen. No functional drawbacks there.
Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants? Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.
Nice job missing the entire point. Look at Samsung's exhibits. They have produced multiple prototypes that look very different from an iPhone. The Galaxy SIII doesn't look much like an iPhone. Their new packaging doesn't look much like Apple's packaging. Yet initially, out of all those prototypes and all the possible packaging designs, they chose the phone that looks almost identical to the iPhone. Their packaging (for the Tab, in particular) looks very much like the iPad. Their chargers and cables look almost identical. It is clear from Samsung's own exhibits that there were designs that would not have been slavish copies - yet Samsung chose none of them. Instead, they deliberately chose the one that is closest in appearance to Apple's. Why is that?
Furthermore, it ignores all the functional patents that are involved - where, again, Samsung deliberately copied key, patented features from the iPhone.
Comments
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.
Can I ask why you don't seem to take any issue when it goes the other way? I mean it's not like terms like "fandroid" or "Micro$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Once upon a time posters used to be original but birds of a feather flock together, great minds think alike, and an original poster is hard to find these days ...
... since the internet was overrun by paid astroturfers.
Looks like Samsung has their army of trolls commenting on this site. Seriously why would anyone but an Apple fan be on Apple insider? I personally spend ZERO time on Google fan sites....actually I don't even bother to look if there are any.
I'll never have a Samsucks product in my home and wish Apple and others would source other component suppliers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Can I ask why you don't seem to take any issue when it goes the other way? I mean it's not like terms like "fandroid" or "Micro$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?
1) He has.
2) This is not a MS or Android site. Childish bashing is to be expected on the internet...at least they aren't trolling MS and Android sites. It is sad and makes the poster look like a childish idiot but they typically aren't bothering anyone too much because this is an Apple fan site. If I were a mod I'd give them a minor infraction and ask them to grow up because it does make everyone else here look bad too.
3) Because there have been lots of trolls poisoning this site. Any idiot with less that 10 posts and uses terms like iSheep is either a troll or an idiot. If I were a mod I'd simply banhammer them because it is highly unlikely they will ever be a net positive on the forum.
Seriously, would anyone normally go to an Apple users group meeting and start yammering about iSheep and Apple fanbois because "that's the common term"? What would you call this person? Asshat comes to mind. Same for any idiot that goes to an Android users group meeting and crow about the superiority of iPhones and yammer about fandroids. Nobody does this in person because everyone knows this is insanely rude. Anyone who would do it in an internet forum is one worth banning. Disagreement is fine. Asshattery is not.
4) If you don't like it, stop reading the site because all the freaking articles are this way too. Ars writing is better anyway and more balanced than DEDs (hard not to be). This is effing AppleInsider not BalancedInsider. That apologists exist here in greater numbers is to be expected and while mildly annoying they aren't here to troll or be assholes.
I wouldn't say it's all bad, though my year old 55" Sammy is dying already...I own a few android products...it's only taken years to finally be usable.
Though this is a case of Apple vs Samsung what really is on trial is the US Patent System and the Judge.
Considering the 4 design patents that Apple is asserting it highlights that something is seriously wrong with the patent system where you can patent rounded corners and flat design as "ornamental" ie have no functional puprose.
The two iPhone design patents include placement of the iPhone’s round “home” button, rounded corners, edge-to-edge glass and “uncluttered” front of the iPhone.
The iOS design patent addresses the grid layout of icons in iOS - along with the bottom dock where staple applications like the phone, browser and messages live. From a design perspective, that is very simple to understand.
The iPad patent, like the two from the iPhone, has to do with the shape and size of the device. A thin bezel and minimal aesthetics of the front and back are the primary aspects.
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
This is all explained succintly here.
http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/design-protection-utility-patents-and-the-apple-v-samsung-foodfight/
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
“front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone…”
and
“overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear… and profiles that are not thin”.
Of course. Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head. They’ll no doubt appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through their opaque screen. No functional drawbacks there.
Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants? Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Torcato
Looks like Samsung has their army of trolls commenting on this site. Seriously why would anyone but an Apple fan be on Apple insider? I personally spend ZERO time on Google fan sites....actually I don't even bother to look if there are any.
I'll never have a Samsucks product in my home and wish Apple and others would source other component suppliers.
The TVs are nice but I tend to buy LGs. I have their washer dryer.
/shrug.
It's just stuff.
The patent system is broken. Some individual holds the patent for inventing email and calls himself the father of email. Enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
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?
Well, the judge is a lawyer, and she seems to disagree. Perhaps it's because Samsung appears to be throwing ANYTHING out there and claiming it looks like an iPad/iPhone, when it clearly doesn't. If the judge allowed them this blanket definition of prior art, then just about every patent could be invalidated simply by trawling through sci-fi movies. Her argument could be that prior art has to actually exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kankerot
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
This is all explained succintly here.
http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/design-protection-utility-patents-and-the-apple-v-samsung-foodfight/
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.
Why is it I can look at the HTC One S and see it is a clearly different phone than any iPhone? Or the Droid Razr? Or the Evo? Or the Palm Pre? Why aren't these guys getting sued for these handsets despite rounded corners, etc?
Why is it only the Samsung handsets being objected to are ones clearly designed to look like the iPhone?
"According to the USPTO, “the design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features.”"
That's a quote from your article. Don't tell me that the appearance of the iPhone is not distinctive and that is exactly what Apple is protecting with design patents. All of these other phones are also ergonomic, not bumpy, not thick and fit perfectly well in pants.
If Apple was suing EVERY company with rounded corners, clean face, etc then I would be inclined to state that Apple was abusing their design patents and the patent system was broken. In THIS case any normal person would look at the hordes of Android phones and pick out those Samsung handsets and think "Wow...that's a pretty blatant copy of the iPhone".
And any site claiming to be concerned about patents and not giving Google grief for using FRAND patents offensively is obviously biased.
We are talking about a design patent. Of course, Samsung should be looking for prior arts as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that.
Prior art does not have to be actual products, as I understand. In this case, there are plenty of actual products as prior arts, see the Uk ruling. I think you need to research what the design patents are.
Welcome to the site. It is always fun to meet new trolls. You have an excellent command of iSheep usage. Very Clever. No one here has ever seen that before. Do you work for Samsung directly or is a PR site running you guys? Which freelance site do they have the ads on? Is this an Amazon turk thing maybe? How much do you make per post? Inquiring iSheep want to know.
You may have noticed this trial is taking place in the US.
Also important to note. Two Judges made the same ruling. I am willing to stipulate two federal judges handling patent cases know a lot more about prior art than anyone who has ever posted on this forum.
I'm puzzled about those that don't use merit and are simply 'pro Korean Samsung and anti American Apple', no questions asked. Are all these pro Korean folks that are in America of Korean descent (in which case I can understand their bias) or are they simply anti American? Many are obviously here in America, hence my puzzlement. Or could it be they are simply the left overs from the once pro Microsoft anti Apple folks that have no where else to turn but to foreign manufacturers now? I assume all the Sammyfans here in the States are booing when the USA teams win too.
LOL, good one.
mmmm... yes I think there are some rulings in Kazakhstan too that might be researched oh and one I recall in Botswana ... oh wait a minute, this is an American court isn't it?
Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.
Actually I am a lawyer and have expressed my opinion on a previous post. People constantly mix up the substance of the case with the procedural issues of the case. All I am going to say is that the Samsung legal team and in particular their lead lawyer is playing a dangerous game in seemingly antagonizing the judge every chance they get which in my experience is not smart regardless of the validity of your case. Apple on the other hand asked for the moon in response to Samsung releasing that rejected evidence to the public. Ask for sanctions fine but don't ask for the case to be decided in your favor based on what is essentially a procedural issue. That was more than a stretch. In a trial you have to cast a wide net with caution. Too wide and the judge will start to be less amenable to your arguments. Always remember that a trial is made up of personalities, especially a jury trial. People act unpredictably which is why I believe that this case will be settled before it gets to jury deliberations. The commercial risk is too large on either side.
The story has been updated.
You are quoting Samsung's lawyers, not the Judge. The Judge has not ruled on the motion for sanctions yet. One of the other people in this thread had already pointed that out, but you chose to ignore them. Sometimes it is not just being able to read, but recognizing someone else might be using a more reliable source (As the other poster indicated).
EXCELLENT article. The author captures the essence of Microsoft very well.
The patent you are referring to is a design patent. It doesn't need to have more than a 'simple drawing with a brief description'.
And, yes, Samsung is free to bring up real prior art. Science fiction is not prior art - that's why it's called 'fiction'. More importantly, the 2001 slate is nothing like the iPad, anyway.
Well, fortunately, that's not what Apple is claiming. Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.
Nice job missing the entire point. Look at Samsung's exhibits. They have produced multiple prototypes that look very different from an iPhone. The Galaxy SIII doesn't look much like an iPhone. Their new packaging doesn't look much like Apple's packaging. Yet initially, out of all those prototypes and all the possible packaging designs, they chose the phone that looks almost identical to the iPhone. Their packaging (for the Tab, in particular) looks very much like the iPad. Their chargers and cables look almost identical. It is clear from Samsung's own exhibits that there were designs that would not have been slavish copies - yet Samsung chose none of them. Instead, they deliberately chose the one that is closest in appearance to Apple's. Why is that?
Furthermore, it ignores all the functional patents that are involved - where, again, Samsung deliberately copied key, patented features from the iPhone.