That is a nice story however it ignores the actual history. The Spanish missions were built from the late 1760s through around 1830 at which time only the Spanish missionaries spoke Spanish and gave places their names. The native population did not speak Spanish but rather indigenous languages. The immigration of Spanish speaking immigrants from Mexico did not start until after 1910 due to the turmoil of the Mexican revolution. At that time California was already a state and the indigenous population had been given ownership of territories. Before that time there were only a few areas of the southwest that were very sparely populated by Spanish speakers. That early 1900s immigration can not compare to the influx of Spanish speaking immigrants into the US in more recent times, For example the Spanish speaking population in the US has doubled since 1990. It is these immigrants to which I referred as being gathered together into segregated communities and not integrating.
It's easier for a Spanish speaking immigrant not have a need to integrate, because in certain states no matter where they go they'll most likely find a Spanish speaking person to assist them.
You guys need to understand that people of different cultures always stick together, no matter what. If I killed someone and it was on video but the judge was of the same culture, I guarantee 100% he'd find me not guilty. It seems that Europeans don't have the same loyalties to their fellow immigrants, doesn't mean others don't.
Judge Koh is and will forever be in favour of Samsung because it is from her native land, if you don't want to believe it then that's your problem.
And your bigotry doesnt necessarily mean that Judge Koh will favor Samsung.
You've just contradicted yourself and left open a wide gap in your logic.
You logic is faulty. Please try again....with a different account name (preferably with a different ip address)
I am much more interested in debating the merits of Apple's patents. Putting aside whether or not the things they've brought Samsung to trial over are patentable under the current system I do not think they should be patentable. They're just too fundamental.
That is a nice story however it ignores the actual history. The Spanish missions were built from the late 1760s through around 1830 at which time only the Spanish missionaries spoke Spanish and gave places their names. The native population did not speak Spanish but rather indigenous languages. The immigration of Spanish speaking immigrants from Mexico did not start until after 1910 due to the turmoil of the Mexican revolution. At that time California was already a state and the indigenous population had been given ownership of territories. Before that time there were only a few areas of the southwest that were very sparely populated by Spanish speakers. That early 1900s immigration can not compare to the influx of Spanish speaking immigrants into the US in more recent times, For example the Spanish speaking population in the US has doubled since 1990. It is these immigrants to which I referred as being gathered together into segregated communities and not integrating.
That's California, think Texas instead. Both Spain and later Mexico encouraged colonization of what is now Texas as a buffer from American expansion. While many empresarios brought European and American colonies, there was significant Mexican emmigration as well and they received preferential treatment in land grants.
There were phones before the LG Chocolate that were referred to as "candy bar" form factor. The Moto SLVR was the first I'd heard but it started even before then.
You are way too serious, read it again slowly and think about it, he was making a joke. I will admit my first reaction was the same as yours though, until I asked myself, "of all the phones why did he pick that one?"
I am much more interested in debating the merits of Apple's patents. Putting aside whether or not the things they've brought Samsung to trial over are patentable under the current system I do not think they should be patentable. They're just too fundamental.
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
That is a complete load of crap. Pick whichever one you wish to address. They make some cool stuff with many of these concepts, but virtually none of those concepts were actually invented by Apple. I find their products work just as well without the RDF .
That is a complete load of crap. Pick whichever one you wish to address. They make some cool stuff with many of these concepts, but virtually none of those concepts were actually invented by Apple. I find their products work just as well without the RDF .
Not quite. The jury needs to be unanimous, but the case will be broken down into multiple parts. So the jury could be unanimous in finding Samsung guilty in one patent, not-guilty on another patent and hung on still another patent.
Did no one else read the respective jury forms? Apple uses simple language. Samsung uses legalese with repetition of the various sections of Samsung with lots of and/or qualifiers aiming to frustrate the jury members with too many choices to keep in mind when decision making. Same old Samsung tactics. Deception, prevarication, confusion and dissembling.
Technically, it's not racism because "Korean" isn't a race. It's more akin to bigotry.
Careful with this argument. According to genetics, races do not exist within human species (they did, at some point in time, with the co-existence of several distinct human races (neanderthal & homo erectus (and possibly others, the picture becomes more and more complicated). This does not imply that nobody can rightfully be considered as racist ...
First, in civil cases, juries do not need to be unanimous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries
"As of 1999 over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases,"
Don't assume that it needs to be unanimous.
The more important factor, though, is that the jury will not simply find Samsung guilty or not guilty once. There are many different charges and it is not uncommon for someone to be guilty for some charges, but not others. Therefore, it is NOT 'all or nothing'.
Careful with this argument. According to genetics, races do not exist within human species (they did, at some point in time, with the co-existence of several distinct human races (neanderthal & homo erectus (and possibly others, the picture becomes more and more complicated). This does not imply that nobody can rightfully be considered as racist ...
Incorrect. By standard biology definitions, there are three races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid (some sites add a fourth for Australian natives).
Incorrect. By standard biology definitions, there are three races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid (some sites add a fourth for Australian natives).
No. Although we enter into linguistic debate (but words do matter, especially in this case ..). What you call "races" are cross fecund, which is one important criteria (but not the only one). In fact geneticians are amazed by the astonishing low genetics diversity among human populations. This can only be explained by the fact that the entire present human population derives from a relatively small initial tribe (a few thousands, may be just a few hundreds of individuals) which are the only ones who managed (somewhat miraculously) to survive to the last ice age/period.
(edit) : do not confuse phenotype and genotype ...
Pretty surprisingly Samsung was successful in getting Judge Koh to issue jury instructions that BOTH Apple and Samsung destroyed evidence that might be helpful to the other party. In essence it nullifies any advantage that Apple thought they might get from adverse instructions targeting Samsung only.
Unless things change again today, this is what jurors will be told about Samsung and destruction of evidence:
"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
and what they'll be told about Apple and destruction of evidence:
"Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung's use in this litigation after Apple's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
Pretty surprisingly Samsung was successful in getting Judge Koh to issue jury instructions that BOTH Apple and Samsung destroyed evidence that might be helpful to the other party. In essence it nullifies any advantage that Apple thought they might get from adverse instructions targeting Samsung only.
Unless things change again today, this is what jurors will be told about Samsung and destruction of evidence:
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:16.883333206176758px;">"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."</span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:16.883333206176758px;">and what they'll be told about Apple and destruction of evidence:</span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:16.883333206176758px;">"Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung's use in this litigation after Apple's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."</span>
If Apple loses, this is plenty of grounds for appeal.
Samsung failed to show any relevance or a single example of destroyed evidence. Apple showed plenty of examples of where evidence that was destroyed would have been relevant.
Comments
It's easier for a Spanish speaking immigrant not have a need to integrate, because in certain states no matter where they go they'll most likely find a Spanish speaking person to assist them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I don't know about a hung jury. It's not an "all or nothing" affair. Every item must be decided separately... right?
Nope, its an all or nothing.
The jury needs to be unanimous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan
You guys need to understand that people of different cultures always stick together, no matter what. If I killed someone and it was on video but the judge was of the same culture, I guarantee 100% he'd find me not guilty. It seems that Europeans don't have the same loyalties to their fellow immigrants, doesn't mean others don't.
Judge Koh is and will forever be in favour of Samsung because it is from her native land, if you don't want to believe it then that's your problem.
And your bigotry doesnt necessarily mean that Judge Koh will favor Samsung.
You've just contradicted yourself and left open a wide gap in your logic.
You logic is faulty. Please try again....with a different account name (preferably with a different ip address)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson Corwell
I am much more interested in debating the merits of Apple's patents. Putting aside whether or not the things they've brought Samsung to trial over are patentable under the current system I do not think they should be patentable. They're just too fundamental.
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
That is a complete load of crap. Pick whichever one you wish to address. They make some cool stuff with many of these concepts, but virtually none of those concepts were actually invented by Apple. I find their products work just as well without the RDF
Quote:
They're only `fundamental' because Apple's implementation and success with them have made them seem fundamental.
Exactly. Most of you will know where I picked this from, perhaps GTR in particular:
“The more original a discovery the more obvious it seems afterward.” — Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation, 1964.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
That is a complete load of crap. Pick whichever one you wish to address. They make some cool stuff with many of these concepts, but virtually none of those concepts were actually invented by Apple. I find their products work just as well without the RDF
Idea vs implementation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Nope, its an all or nothing.
The jury needs to be unanimous.
Not quite. The jury needs to be unanimous, but the case will be broken down into multiple parts. So the jury could be unanimous in finding Samsung guilty in one patent, not-guilty on another patent and hung on still another patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Idea vs implementation...
Did you note the context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Did you note the context?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Just curious - how do you manage to survive in junior high without getting beat to a pulp for being a loud-mouthed, obnoxious bigot?
He is still in high school
Apple uses simple language.
Samsung uses legalese with repetition of the various sections of Samsung with lots of and/or qualifiers aiming to frustrate the jury members with too many choices to keep in mind when decision making.
Same old Samsung tactics.
Deception, prevarication, confusion and dissembling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Technically, it's not racism because "Korean" isn't a race. It's more akin to bigotry.
Careful with this argument. According to genetics, races do not exist within human species (they did, at some point in time, with the co-existence of several distinct human races (neanderthal & homo erectus (and possibly others, the picture becomes more and more complicated). This does not imply that nobody can rightfully be considered as racist ...
As many of the posters demonstrate on a daily basis, it is possible to be American and go to school in the US and still not be educated.
Maybe.
First, in civil cases, juries do not need to be unanimous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries
"As of 1999 over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases,"
Don't assume that it needs to be unanimous.
However, CA is split. State courts only require 3/4 of the jurors to find someone guilty. Federal courts require unanimous decision in civil cases:
http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-constitutional-law/jurors-win-civil-court-case-690122453/a
The more important factor, though, is that the jury will not simply find Samsung guilty or not guilty once. There are many different charges and it is not uncommon for someone to be guilty for some charges, but not others. Therefore, it is NOT 'all or nothing'.
Incorrect. By standard biology definitions, there are three races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid (some sites add a fourth for Australian natives).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Incorrect. By standard biology definitions, there are three races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid (some sites add a fourth for Australian natives).
No. Although we enter into linguistic debate (but words do matter, especially in this case ..). What you call "races" are cross fecund, which is one important criteria (but not the only one). In fact geneticians are amazed by the astonishing low genetics diversity among human populations. This can only be explained by the fact that the entire present human population derives from a relatively small initial tribe (a few thousands, may be just a few hundreds of individuals) which are the only ones who managed (somewhat miraculously) to survive to the last ice age/period.
(edit) : do not confuse phenotype and genotype ...
Pretty surprisingly Samsung was successful in getting Judge Koh to issue jury instructions that BOTH Apple and Samsung destroyed evidence that might be helpful to the other party. In essence it nullifies any advantage that Apple thought they might get from adverse instructions targeting Samsung only.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsung-successfully-neutralizes.html
Unless things change again today, this is what jurors will be told about Samsung and destruction of evidence:
"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
and what they'll be told about Apple and destruction of evidence:
"Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung's use in this litigation after Apple's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
If Apple loses, this is plenty of grounds for appeal.
Samsung failed to show any relevance or a single example of destroyed evidence. Apple showed plenty of examples of where evidence that was destroyed would have been relevant.