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$oft" aren't batted around here all the time. Or the term "troll" when anyone dares speak ill of Apple. Are you getting to sit here and pretend that there aren't quite a few people on this site who would pretty mindlessly support and defend Apple no matter what they did?
1) I also can't stand Micro$oft ,Windoze, Samesung, or any such common variation.
2) I do like Fandroid. It's simple and within itself contain no derogatory statement. It's oft used in a derogatory way usage is different than the issue I. I group it more wit the term iDevice which is just a simple way to refer to the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad, in most cases. Can you make a case that no fan of Android would be mind be referred to as a fan of Android? I cant.
3) I use troll but it's a well know term on the internet with a well know meaning. We do have to use words with meaning in order to communicate, right? BTW, troll is used for anyone across the internet and has no definition that refers specifically to anyone who is against Apple.
4) I don't care for the comments Apple ][ often makes on this forum and have never hid that fact. He's the poster I've put on ignore more than anyone else over the years. Not so much for his extreme bias in favor of anything Apple but for other biases he has.
5) If you want to imply I'm biased then you have to argue as to why I included ANALyst in my original comment when that is used on this forum when ever an analyst says Apple will falter in any way.
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
See - now I'm in trouble for not using an irony designator. Yes - I agree - it is really a huge distinction.
It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.
However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.
It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.
However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.
According to news reports she polled the jurors to see if any of them had read or heard or read about it. None had, altho one single juror said she had glanced at a headline that might have referred to it, but didn't read the article as she knew she wasn't supposed to. So there was no "tainting". Nice to see that at least the jurors follow the judge's instructions even if the litigants may appear not to.
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.
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.
Read your post again - post 80.
Rip Van Winkle - another sad attempt at humour?
Point 1 - have you got a reference for this.
Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which.
That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.
Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents.
Point 1 - have you got a reference for this.
Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which.
That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.
Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents.
Give me a break.
Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.
Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.
The Best Buy evidence is questionalble - how was it collected and what questions were asked. There are multiple reasons people will claim to justify a return. What effect does a salesman have in the decision etc.
As I pointed out before being able to tell the difference from a distance you would never make a decision from in any practical sense proves nothing other than it being a stunt.
What statment did I say it was flat out wrong. You are making a straw argument.
As I pointed out how you can say flat surfaces, rounded corners etc are purely ornamental is just absurd.
Also as to the point of confusion - then it can also run in favour of Apple where someone wanted to buy a Samsung Tablet but then ended up buying an Ipad. If the confusion is so great - when do people realise they have bought the wrong product and if they have realised that then they have the option of a return, so there is a remedy.
Be sure to note that Apple says in the application that anything drawn with dotted lines is not part of the claimed design, and instead for "illustrative purposes only"
If anyone else wants to take a shot at describing what Apple has laid claim to, I'd like to see what your understanding of it is.
Comments
1) I also can't stand Micro$oft ,Windoze, Samesung, or any such common variation.
2) I do like Fandroid. It's simple and within itself contain no derogatory statement. It's oft used in a derogatory way usage is different than the issue I. I group it more wit the term iDevice which is just a simple way to refer to the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad, in most cases. Can you make a case that no fan of Android would be mind be referred to as a fan of Android? I cant.
3) I use troll but it's a well know term on the internet with a well know meaning. We do have to use words with meaning in order to communicate, right? BTW, troll is used for anyone across the internet and has no definition that refers specifically to anyone who is against Apple.
4) I don't care for the comments Apple ][ often makes on this forum and have never hid that fact. He's the poster I've put on ignore more than anyone else over the years. Not so much for his extreme bias in favor of anything Apple but for other biases he has.
5) If you want to imply I'm biased then you have to argue as to why I included ANALyst in my original comment when that is used on this forum when ever an analyst says Apple will falter in any way.
See - now I'm in trouble for not using an irony designator. Yes - I agree - it is really a huge distinction.
As a final update, Koh denies Apple's request for sanctions.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-03/samsung-defeats-apple-bid-for-sanctions-over-evidence
It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.
However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.
However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.
According to news reports she polled the jurors to see if any of them had read or heard or read about it. None had, altho one single juror said she had glanced at a headline that might have referred to it, but didn't read the article as she knew she wasn't supposed to. So there was no "tainting". Nice to see that at least the jurors follow the judge's instructions even if the litigants may appear not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Read your post again - post 80.
Rip Van Winkle - another sad attempt at humour?
Point 1 - have you got a reference for this.
Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which.
That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.
Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents.
Give me a break.
Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
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.
I sometimes wish it was admitted as evidence.
It would have made the jury chuckle at Samsung's desperation to prove that Apple is a copyist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Give me a break.
Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.
The Best Buy evidence is questionalble - how was it collected and what questions were asked. There are multiple reasons people will claim to justify a return. What effect does a salesman have in the decision etc.
As I pointed out before being able to tell the difference from a distance you would never make a decision from in any practical sense proves nothing other than it being a stunt.
What statment did I say it was flat out wrong. You are making a straw argument.
As I pointed out how you can say flat surfaces, rounded corners etc are purely ornamental is just absurd.
Also as to the point of confusion - then it can also run in favour of Apple where someone wanted to buy a Samsung Tablet but then ended up buying an Ipad. If the confusion is so great - when do people realise they have bought the wrong product and if they have realised that then they have the option of a return, so there is a remedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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'.
Apple didn't patent round corners - no matter how many times you trolls pretend that they did.
Jr, I'm curious how you would describe in words what Apple is claiming in this design patent asserted against Samsung smartphones.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf
Be sure to note that Apple says in the application that anything drawn with dotted lines is not part of the claimed design, and instead for "illustrative purposes only"
If anyone else wants to take a shot at describing what Apple has laid claim to, I'd like to see what your understanding of it is.