Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?
Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You are wrong, again. They did what you described (making information public), but they also brought witnesses into the court room (while the room was empty) in direct violation of the court's orders.
Then tell us the exact words where he claims to be an expert witness and cite a reference.
More importantly, show us the exact words where he did the following as you claimed:
"When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."
I'm not interested in your interpretation, I want to see the exact words where he substituted his knowledge/expertise for the judge's instructions and where he used is knowledge/expertise to substitute for the testimony and evidence presented in the trial.
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area.
Just accept it.
You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one.
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
Samsung will combat Apple's attempt to ban the sales of eight smartphones with "all necessary measures," the company said in a statement issued to The Wall Street Journalon Tuesday. Among the options available to Samsung are filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the injunction is granted by Judge Lucy Koh, and modifying its products to circumvent any bans.
it seems the quickest means to prevent the ban is to remove the feature(s) the jury found to be infringing on Apple's patents. appeals can take months or years to work through the courts.
You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one.
You are clueless, since If Samsung gets the decision reduced, it's a pretty bad reflection on Samsng's integrity and business practices. Everyone knows, it's always best to win the first round !
This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.
But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely.
A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team.
If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.
For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?
How can I? You refuse to tell me what words you're referring to. I certainly can't find anything that backs up your claims.
Just to remind you - since you don't seem to be able to follow an argument... you said: "When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."
So what are his exact words where he substituted his own expertise for the witnesses and evidence presented in the trial and where did he substitute his own expertise for the instructions of the court?
And keep in mind - the jury verdict was reached quickly which is a pretty strong sign (confirmed by all the jury interviews after the fact) that they jury was absolutely convinced that Samsung was guilty. No one had to twist their arms.
So, again, is Round 2 when you're going to provide evidence to back up your claims?
Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely.
A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team.
If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.
Exactly. It's one thing to convince an appeals court that a judge erred. Samsung MIGHT have some success in arguing that evidence was improperly rejected or the jury instructions were improper (although it looks like Koh bent over backwards to ignore Samsung's legal shenanigans). Those things are matters of law. OTOH, their chances are pretty slim that they will convince an appeals court that the jury erred because of bias or any other reason.
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
To further address your nonsense, there was a jury selection process. These jurors were screened and agreed to by both Apple and Samsung. All part of procedure.
Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals. They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts. Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder. Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado...
Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?
They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer. Their real problem is with Google.
Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals. They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts. Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder. Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado...
Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?
They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer. Their real problem is with Google.
who is directing all this Samsung?
Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea.
BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?
Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea.
BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?
Could be same people, alt accounts. *shrugs*
Then again, there's no shortage of them over at MacRumors. Too funny. It's an Apple-centric website, and they go there to troll. *doesn't make sense.*
For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?
Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."
So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?
Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."
So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?
Because Apple's continued success, their cockiness, their foresight, the way they humiliate their competitors and then teabag them in Consumer Satisfaction, their devotion to a closed ecosystem, their shrewdness, their obsession with detail and control, their devotion to making tech easy, usable, and less complex for Joe Average (read: can't tinker, sorry IT crowd), and their insistence on protecting what's rightfully theirs . . . drives him absolutely batshit crazy.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?
Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You are wrong, again. They did what you described (making information public), but they also brought witnesses into the court room (while the room was empty) in direct violation of the court's orders.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/samsung_shows_courtroom_to_witnesses_breaks_court_rules/
Then tell us the exact words where he claims to be an expert witness and cite a reference.
More importantly, show us the exact words where he did the following as you claimed:
"When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."
I'm not interested in your interpretation, I want to see the exact words where he substituted his knowledge/expertise for the judge's instructions and where he used is knowledge/expertise to substitute for the testimony and evidence presented in the trial.
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
Exactly, dump Samsung stock and turn around and buy Apple stock -- if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It no longer makes a difference.
It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area.
Just accept it.
You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
Go read for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung will combat Apple's attempt to ban the sales of eight smartphones with "all necessary measures," the company said in a statement issued to The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. Among the options available to Samsung are filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the injunction is granted by Judge Lucy Koh, and modifying its products to circumvent any bans.
it seems the quickest means to prevent the ban is to remove the feature(s) the jury found to be infringing on Apple's patents. appeals can take months or years to work through the courts.
So is round 2 the one where you provide the evidence to support your claims attacking the jury foreman? I'll be waiting.
You are clueless, since If Samsung gets the decision reduced, it's a pretty bad reflection on Samsng's integrity and business practices. Everyone knows, it's always best to win the first round !
This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.
But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So is round 2 the one where you provide the evidence to support your claims attacking the jury foreman? I'll be waiting.
For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely.
A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team.
If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.
How can I? You refuse to tell me what words you're referring to. I certainly can't find anything that backs up your claims.
Just to remind you - since you don't seem to be able to follow an argument... you said: "When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."
So what are his exact words where he substituted his own expertise for the witnesses and evidence presented in the trial and where did he substitute his own expertise for the instructions of the court?
And keep in mind - the jury verdict was reached quickly which is a pretty strong sign (confirmed by all the jury interviews after the fact) that they jury was absolutely convinced that Samsung was guilty. No one had to twist their arms.
So, again, is Round 2 when you're going to provide evidence to back up your claims?
Exactly. It's one thing to convince an appeals court that a judge erred. Samsung MIGHT have some success in arguing that evidence was improperly rejected or the jury instructions were improper (although it looks like Koh bent over backwards to ignore Samsung's legal shenanigans). Those things are matters of law. OTOH, their chances are pretty slim that they will convince an appeals court that the jury erred because of bias or any other reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
For the last time, read his own words. You can do that, can't you?
LOL is this dude a joke?
It never ceases to amaze me how pointless and shrill you Samsung shills are.
Please give up. Your company already looks pretty bad without the likes of you having to exacerbate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
To further address your nonsense, there was a jury selection process. These jurors were screened and agreed to by both Apple and Samsung. All part of procedure.
Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals. They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts. Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder. Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado...
Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?
They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer. Their real problem is with Google.
who is directing all this Samsung?
Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea.
BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yeah, but all is not lost. After all, Samsung got a tie in S. Korea.
BTW, I notice that googleguy, daharder, and the rest of the older shills have been replaced by a new crop of trolls. I wonder if the old timers haven't recovered enough to be able to post. Should I send flowers?
Could be same people, alt accounts. *shrugs*
Then again, there's no shortage of them over at MacRumors. Too funny. It's an Apple-centric website, and they go there to troll. *doesn't make sense.*
Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."
So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Oh, btw, I did find an updated report that listed more of the foreman's words. He said:
"we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on."
So how do you conclude from that statement that he overrode the judge's instructions with his own expertise?
Because Apple's continued success, their cockiness, their foresight, the way they humiliate their competitors and then teabag them in Consumer Satisfaction, their devotion to a closed ecosystem, their shrewdness, their obsession with detail and control, their devotion to making tech easy, usable, and less complex for Joe Average (read: can't tinker, sorry IT crowd), and their insistence on protecting what's rightfully theirs . . . drives him absolutely batshit crazy.
And it warms my heart to see that.
http://www.ijailbreak.com/news/samsung-windows-8-s-launcher-os-x-dock/