Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
Hello.... did you have trouble reading/processing arguments for why she excluded it?
Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).
I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....
Gotcha. Most of those odds and ends can be found here, along with links to the original image sources:
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
That's not how a jury system works, Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial. And you cannot claim bias without proof. It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it. If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that. Not us.
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
They submitted it late. It's unlikely that the judge is as biased as you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).
I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....
Just on the cable charger thing, one end was usb, and other looked about as similar to pdmi, although I don't think samsung uses that. The cable portion was a real stretch to the suggestion of that array of jpegs..
That's not how a jury system works, Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial. And you cannot claim bias without proof. It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it. If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that. Not us.
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
That was before she showed bias for Apple, which came after her decision to show bias for Samsung. Before that she was simply biased against Americans. . .
Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other. Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.
Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone. To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it." If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.
You don't understand why it is fair because you don't understand the legal issues involved. Apple is suing Samsung for relief under multiple legal theories including patent, copyright, and trademark.
Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.
The Court, however, is saying Samsung can use the F700 to counter any Apple argument of copyright infringement whereby it would be relevant to show independent development.
Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.
Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
Yep.. that was when judge Koh refused to grant injunction against Samsung - which was later overturned.
It's difficult to tell Koh is really biased - seems like the mainstream media coverage of the case is overly favorable to Apple, while others, Groklaw for instance, seem to side with Samsung. Then you have self-claimed patent-expert Florian Mueller, a paid anti-Android shill, whose commentaries routinely show up on Cnet, AI, etc..
And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.
And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.
In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false. Do you see the parallels?
In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false. Do you see the parallels?
It's not though. It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface. It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.
Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing. They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.
Then why aren't we shown different angles when comparing Samsung's devices with Apple's? I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700. Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. Now as far as Touch Wiz goes I feel that they intentionally copied the look of iOS.
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
Verdicts are matters of criminal trials, not civil. Further, unless you understand patent, copyright, and trademark law, you can hardly argue the Judge is showing bias. Many thought the judge was originally biased against Apple because she didn't initially order the injunctions Apple requested until the appeal court said injunctions might be appropriate. Further, I think the judge isn't being hard enough on Samsung considering it destroying evidence, violated the Court's wishes on releasing information to the public, and allowed an attorney not admitted to the Court to argue a motion.
Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.
You are right I am making a general claim for purposes of simplicity, but in this case the patent has not been found to be invalid. So the Judge is treating the patent as valid. As such, Samsung's prior work is irrelevant for purposes of Apple's design patent.
... I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700 Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. ...
It is difficult and confusing but if you believe this, then you believe incorrectly. These phones have almost nothing in common.
They certainly aren't "variants" which refers to two models that are very close in design to one another in the same series.
As to Apple's design patents specifically, it doesn't matter that it's a slider phone or that the screen was resistive. The screen technology was not specified or restricted, nor would it be for design. In one of the two patents Apple says the claims apply even to a toy. As for the keyboard, Apple design patent doesn't speak to that as a claimed element. They only concern themselves with the forward display area. Side and back views are illustrative only and not part of the claims
It's a difficult and somewhat hazy area IMO. I actually kind of agree with Samsung's "functional" argument in that once you remove the keys from the front of the phone, going "all screen" is a fairly natural progression. All smartphones nowadays have "all screen" on the front side. Unfortunately, the Samsung lawyers seem to have buggered up the evidence submission to the point that we probably won't see that successfully argued which is a shame IMO.
The way these design patents work however (as far as I understand), is similar to "trade dress" and trademark issues. In that case it matters who was there first.
Apple was first on the scene (I know people argue this but the general belief is that for all intents and purposes they were first), with a phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners, with a single button in the middle at the bottom. They registered this imagery first, forcing others to come up with subtle variations. Therefore the Nokia variation has no metal edge ring and wedge shaped corners, Microsofts design is slightly different in other ways etc. The new Galaxy's are differentiated in their own "design language" in this way too (although an argument could be made that they now copy the old Palm devices).
I think Samsung's lawyers basically screwed up procedurally on the only half-assed argument they had in the first place, which is too bad because deciding on objective facts is always best.
They should still lose on all the other, more technically oriented patents anyway (rubber banding, etc.), and they clearly copied trade dress on the boxes and cables etc.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
Hello.... did you have trouble reading/processing arguments for why she excluded it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).
I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....
Gotcha. Most of those odds and ends can be found here, along with links to the original image sources:
http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan
I do pay attention. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
That's not how a jury system works, Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial. And you cannot claim bias without proof. It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it. If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that. Not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
They submitted it late. It's unlikely that the judge is as biased as you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).
I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....
Just on the cable charger thing, one end was usb, and other looked about as similar to pdmi, although I don't think samsung uses that. The cable portion was a real stretch to the suggestion of that array of jpegs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Gotcha. Most of those odds and ends can be found here, along with links to the original image sources:
http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan
I do pay attention. . .
Thanks. That's a mother lode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Thanks. That's a mother lode.
I do have my useful side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy
That's not how a jury system works, Juries are only supposed to consider relevant evidence based on how it is presented at trial. And you cannot claim bias without proof. It isn't bias if one side continuously creates situations that cause it to have rulings set against it. If there is proof of bias, that is up to an appellate judge to decide that. Not us.
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
That was before she showed bias for Apple, which came after her decision to show bias for Samsung. Before that she was simply biased against Americans. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other. Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.
Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone. To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it." If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.
You don't understand why it is fair because you don't understand the legal issues involved. Apple is suing Samsung for relief under multiple legal theories including patent, copyright, and trademark.
Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.
The Court, however, is saying Samsung can use the F700 to counter any Apple argument of copyright infringement whereby it would be relevant to show independent development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Apple is claiming it isn't fair to allow Samsung's designer to testify about the F700 because it is irrelevant to Apple's design patent argument. Apple is right, it is irrelevant. Once a design patent is granted it doesn't matter if another company had a similar work in development because if the company brings a competing product to market that infringes on the already granted patented work it isn't a valid defense to say we had been developing a similar product.
Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
I seem to remember talk that she would be biased toward Samsung since she is of Korean descent, now it is the other way around in some peoples eyes.
Yep.. that was when judge Koh refused to grant injunction against Samsung - which was later overturned.
It's difficult to tell Koh is really biased - seems like the mainstream media coverage of the case is overly favorable to Apple, while others, Groklaw for instance, seem to side with Samsung. Then you have self-claimed patent-expert Florian Mueller, a paid anti-Android shill, whose commentaries routinely show up on Cnet, AI, etc..
And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
And not that it matters in a US case, but I believe I remember reading that Samsung did apply for a design patent on their F700 before Apple filed theirs. So what's the issue then? Samsungs' was applied for and granted in Korea.
In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false. Do you see the parallels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
In the Beijing Olympics, China was also able to produce documentation showing legitimate birth records for atheletes that were later determined to be false. Do you see the parallels?
Welcome to AI - home of the birther movement.
Then why aren't we shown different angles when comparing Samsung's devices with Apple's? I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700. Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. Now as far as Touch Wiz goes I feel that they intentionally copied the look of iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22
Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple. I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded. Why not let the jury decide for themselves.
Verdicts are matters of criminal trials, not civil. Further, unless you understand patent, copyright, and trademark law, you can hardly argue the Judge is showing bias. Many thought the judge was originally biased against Apple because she didn't initially order the injunctions Apple requested until the appeal court said injunctions might be appropriate. Further, I think the judge isn't being hard enough on Samsung considering it destroying evidence, violated the Court's wishes on releasing information to the public, and allowed an attorney not admitted to the Court to argue a motion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
Actually that's not always true, because the granted patented could be invalid. Not saying we know if in this case it's invalid, but you're making a general claim that's just not always true.
You are right I am making a general claim for purposes of simplicity, but in this case the patent has not been found to be invalid. So the Judge is treating the patent as valid. As such, Samsung's prior work is irrelevant for purposes of Apple's design patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
... I believe the SGS & SGS 2 are variants of the F700 Samsung made a phone (F700) and when they saw what Apple had done decided to tweak their very own design. ...
It is difficult and confusing but if you believe this, then you believe incorrectly. These phones have almost nothing in common.
They certainly aren't "variants" which refers to two models that are very close in design to one another in the same series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As to Apple's design patents specifically, it doesn't matter that it's a slider phone or that the screen was resistive. The screen technology was not specified or restricted, nor would it be for design. In one of the two patents Apple says the claims apply even to a toy. As for the keyboard, Apple design patent doesn't speak to that as a claimed element. They only concern themselves with the forward display area. Side and back views are illustrative only and not part of the claims
It's a difficult and somewhat hazy area IMO. I actually kind of agree with Samsung's "functional" argument in that once you remove the keys from the front of the phone, going "all screen" is a fairly natural progression. All smartphones nowadays have "all screen" on the front side. Unfortunately, the Samsung lawyers seem to have buggered up the evidence submission to the point that we probably won't see that successfully argued which is a shame IMO.
The way these design patents work however (as far as I understand), is similar to "trade dress" and trademark issues. In that case it matters who was there first.
Apple was first on the scene (I know people argue this but the general belief is that for all intents and purposes they were first), with a phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners, with a single button in the middle at the bottom. They registered this imagery first, forcing others to come up with subtle variations. Therefore the Nokia variation has no metal edge ring and wedge shaped corners, Microsofts design is slightly different in other ways etc. The new Galaxy's are differentiated in their own "design language" in this way too (although an argument could be made that they now copy the old Palm devices).
I think Samsung's lawyers basically screwed up procedurally on the only half-assed argument they had in the first place, which is too bad because deciding on objective facts is always best.
They should still lose on all the other, more technically oriented patents anyway (rubber banding, etc.), and they clearly copied trade dress on the boxes and cables etc.