Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 110
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    hjb wrote: »
    Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.

    The US court will, they were not based on US law or US Patents. Since you want to look at them. You may note that the UK trial did not even involve the same devices...
  • Reply 82 of 110
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,665member
    hjb wrote: »
    Sure, but you can not simply ignore non-us rulings, IMO.

    Ok, I honestly don't know, but where do you stop if you are correct?
  • Reply 83 of 110
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    jigjag69 wrote: »
    no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards


    My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..

    I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers

    Follow-up on my previous question. Do you get paid for these clever responses too, or just for posting the canned message?
  • Reply 84 of 110
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 



     


     


    It isn't odd. She asked the parties to file their arguments. Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions. Samsung has a chance to respond. It now has. The judge will review the parties arguments, and make a ruling. 

  • Reply 85 of 110
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Their chargers and cables look almost identical. .

    For fun one day we should comb through the site and see if we can match users to two kinds of posts. Posts claiming Samsung doesn't copy at all and posts complaining that Apple does not use a standard connector like micro-USB. I think we would see a lot of overlap between those two groups. It would be fascinating.
  • Reply 86 of 110
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,665member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.

    You know, to those of us that remember the rise of Japan as a manufacturing giant in the 60's and 70's this is all very déjà vu. Many products from America and Europe were slavishly copied and back then they even had the nerve to use the same names with tiny changes to deceive buyers such as lighters by R.onson (the period after the R). It is great to see this time around someone not standing for it.
  • Reply 87 of 110
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Remember OJ Simpson! :-)



    OJ Simpson was one of the few cases where I think the jury got it right. I thought he did it, but the prosecution did a horrible job. It mishandled evidence. It showed pictures that claimed to be an untouched crime scene, only to have other pictures also comporting to be an untouched crime scene that showed items not in the other photos. Plus the officers investigating the case were caught lying on the stand. THere were numerous other errors as well. 


     


    The result here should be similar. Samsung keeps screwing up. It deserves to lose. 

  • Reply 88 of 110
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    tbell wrote: »

    It isn't odd. She asked the parties to file their arguments. Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions. Samsung has a chance to respond. It now has. The judge will review the parties arguments, and make a ruling. 

    Exactly - and probably very soon since the trial resumes today.

    Given that Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times in this trial (according to Foss Patents) and the fact that they've ignored orders from at least 2 different judges, I can't imagine that her patience is going to hold out much longer. I would anticipate a fairly severe penalty, but probably not as severe as Apple asked for.

    My guess would be jury instructions which go something like this:
    "You were asked not to read anything about this case in the press and to limit your access to this case to activities that occur in this courtroom. The reason for that is that my role as a judge is to enforce standards of evidence to ensure that you are only receiving information which is allowed under our legal system which is designed to ensure justice and fair representation to both sides. Evidence must meet standards of acceptability before it can be presented and the opposing side then has the opportunity to respond. In this case, Samsung has violated that rule and responsibility and has made an attempt to influence the case outside of the courtroom by presenting some documents that were deemed not admissible as they did not meet the standards of admissible evidence. Since these documents were rejected as inadmissible when Samsung tried four times to get me to allow them, you are directed to ignore anything that you have seen or heard about the case outside of this court room. Further, you are free to consider whether Samsung's attempts to violate the legal due process that exists in this country to ensure fairness is an indication that they have no respect for this court or for you as the jury. You are also free to consider whether their attempts to go outside the system is based on a belief that their case is so weak that they can not rely on this court's justice as administered by you, the jurors."

    Now, some of the wording probably needs to be changed, but that would get the essence of the message across. It's not as severe as Apple's approach which would simply find Samsung guilty because of this breach, but it would be an appropriate response.
  • Reply 89 of 110
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,665member
    wovel wrote: »
    For fun one day we should comb through the site and see if we can match users to two kinds of posts. Posts claiming Samsung doesn't copy at all and posts complaining that Apple does not use a standard connector like micro-USB. I think we would see a lot of overlap between those two groups. It would be fascinating.

    Right. I'd bet they are either paid to post crap on our blogs or are sitting at a PC they built themselves and do it out of some weird hatred of all things Apple.

    One change I am seeing in the latter group is they are now splitting into two factions. One running windows still the other, hackintosh machines. The Apple hate is firmly from the first group for sure. These guys are forced to love Android and what ever company is leading in that field at any given time (HTC anyone?) simply to cling on to their position.

    I have hope for the hackintosh folks / smile.
  • Reply 90 of 110
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Whether the judge rules left or right or in-between, it still doesn't fix Android; it still doesn't help the also-rans sell their bad tablets; it still won't save Nokia; it still won't prevent a blowout holiday quarter for Apple; it still won't help the industry's enormous laziness and lack of imagination; if there's an "Apple TV" in the works, it still won't save the old guard electronics makers; and it won't help Microsoft's Surface look like something more than an answer to a question no one asked.  

    The trolls here forget that Joe Average doesn't care how the judge rules. They just want the best gear money can buy, and they're willing to line up for it and pay big money for it. And it's most of it's sporting an Apple logo.

    Exactly, which is why the Samsung Galaxy S3 is raking in money for Samsung worldwide right now. People walk into a store and see a tiny, 3.5" screen, with way too much bezel, a glass back (seriously??) that will break anytime the phone is dropped, with nothing but rows of icons covering the entire homescreen, and then they see a big, beautiful, Super AMOLED HD screen, on a thinner device, with beautiful homescreens with beautiful, real-time widgets, and the choice is easy. Keep buying your iPhones thinking they are the "top tech" just because they are made by Apple. Those of us with a brain will actually do research and buy the superior product. And for those of you that think the Galaxy S3 is somehow "inspired" by Apple's designs, put the two phones side by side again, do a double take, and if you still think they look alike, get your head checked.
  • Reply 91 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


     


    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.



     


    Design patents protect ornamental design - if its fucntional or structural it does not come under a design patent - pure and simple.


     


    Apple is going after Samsung simply because its its biggest competitor. That doesn't mean they won't go after others.

  • Reply 92 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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.


     


    Namecalling - well done.


     


    The point is straightforward the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad and thus it requires them to come with absolute ridiculous testimony to prove their worth where having functional aspects are purely ornamental.


     


    What you are arguing is that a sensible person cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when each phone has their respective trademarks on them. So someone who wants to buy an Iphone somehow gets duped into buying a Samsung phone even though it has a Samsung logo, looks different, has a different size etc.


     


    Where Apple has stronger grounds is the utility patents.

  • Reply 93 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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.


    Namecalling. Well Done.


     


    The point that the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad which has resulted in their absurd testimony where functional aspects like rounded corners are purely for ornamental purposes.


     


    But what is the practical aspect of all this. Are arguing is that an average person - say a member of the jury cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when they both have their logos printed on them, have different profiles. So you are saying that a person who goes to buy an Iphone will get duped into buying a Samsung product?

  • Reply 94 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

    Not really. It's common to wait until the next day they are in court anyway, hand down a slap in the first few minutes, tell the jury anything they need to be told on record and then carry on with the rest

    Not to mention once Apple filed their motion, they have to give Samsung to respond or that could become cause for an appeal. Sure Samsung is going to Apple's any slap they get. Will file if the issue goes on record with the jury etc. But procedural missteps like not being allowed even a day to file a response, especially to something as big as a motion for summary judgement, that's almost always a guaranteed win. No way is a judge going to risk it. Not when they can wait a couple of days to let everyone file their say and deal with it on Monday without a major affect on the trial since its still way early on
  • Reply 95 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    sennen wrote: »
    Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

    No taking BS games from a company isn't bias, it's doing her job.

    Find where she's not judging the same against Apple for identical games, has 100 shares of Apple stock, etc then you have cause to suggest she is very possibly biased,

    But right now the only bias that seems to be evident is yours
  • Reply 96 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    johndoe98 wrote: »
    No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.

    Despite the poor writing in the original article, no she didn't. Koh hadn't made any final ruling. She said Quinn had good cause to file his motion that Apples request was too extreme. Basically she's allowing him to make a counter argument that if Samsung is found to be in the wrong the requested summary judgement shouldn't be made. She wasn't likely too anyway since she'd be giving them cause to appeal.
  • Reply 97 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    muppetry wrote: »
    AI has now updated the story to reflect that tiny little subtlety.

    It's hardly a liitle subtlety. The article claimed a judgement had been made on something that hasn't even been heard yet. That is a huge mis write.

    I know that AI is 'just a blog' not a newspaper but such sloppiness is really much. Particularly when this site gets quoted and referenced as if they know and verified what they are talking about
  • Reply 98 of 110
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    kankerot wrote: »
    Namecalling. Well Done.

    Really? What name calling are you referring to? I simply stated that you missed the point - and explained why. That's the exact opposite of name calling.
    kankerot wrote: »
    The point that the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad which has resulted in their absurd testimony where functional aspects like rounded corners are purely for ornamental purposes.

    But what is the practical aspect of all this. Are arguing is that an average person - say a member of the jury cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when they both have their logos printed on them, have different profiles. So you are saying that a person who goes to buy an Iphone will get duped into buying a Samsung product?

    How have you been, Rip Van Winkle? (There's some name calling for you). You've obviously been asleep for months.

    1. Samsung's own testimony says that the #1 reason for their product returns at Best Buy were due to customers thinking that they were buying an iPad. That's fact - not my opinion (or yours).

    2. Samsung's own attorneys were unable to tell the difference between the two products when asked by a judge to do so.

    The evidence is quite clear that Samsung's products DO cause confusion.
  • Reply 99 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    hjb wrote: »
    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.

    Different countries, different laws. You can't really mix and match them since the jurisdictions generally don't cross over. That's why multiple suits are filed, etc
  • Reply 100 of 110
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    jragosta wrote: »


    Now, some of the wording probably needs to be changed, but that would get the essence of the message across. It's not as severe as Apple's approach which would simply find Samsung guilty because of this breach, but it would be an appropriate response.

    I suspect that the end result, with a contempt fine perhaps, will be basically as you suggest.

    The judge might not even need to add the weakness bit as it has already been suggested to the jury and they are hopefully smart enough to go there on their own without an on record statement Samsung will try to use to get an appeal if they lose
Sign In or Register to comment.