Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials. Justice would slow to a crawl. Can you imagine? If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want. With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want. Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.
Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials. Justice would slow to a crawl. Can you imagine? If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want. With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want. Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.
Or purposely let jurors on that you believe will rule against you, let it happen, and then point out the biases that qualified said jurors in your mind in the first place! It's a win-win.
The outcome is not only determined by what information Hogan discussed, but what the jury instructions were, where Hogan got his information (if he did his own legal research, then the jury would be tainted), how the discussion actually went, the give and take within the jury room.
I look forward to the hearing and learning more.
Tainted?
Like Samsung's thinly veiled attempts to taint the jury by releasing disallowed evidence to the media, in some vain hope that some of the jury would disregard instructions and be exposed to the news.
Evidence that was disallowed mainly due to the Samsung legal team's failure to comply with the rules of the court in a timely manner.
And if Apple had lost many here would be condemning Mr. Hogan.
Sure, but so what? The "many here" you refer to did not examine Mr. Hogan under void dire. Samsung's attorneys did. My point is that they decided after losing that they didn't like this jurist, but they were OK with him when the trial started.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
The order by the court was stupid to begin with. Apple makes their product first, Samsung, being a Supposed business partner/component supplier goes behind their back and basically copies Apple and Apple is supposed to suffer for it?
Screw Samsung. I won't ever buy a Samsung product for several reasons. I don't think they make good products. Their compent division might fabricate decent semiconductor chips, mostly because they use the latest mfg equipment made by other companies, but that's about it.
Samsung to me is just a cheaply made hunk of garbage and they don't really do anything other than try to emulate other companies original designs and throw in some useless features and bribe people into selling them.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
The journalists that are slamming Apple are Windows and/or Android users. It's been like that for years. Nothing new. In fact, some of these journalists are STUPID idiots with a journalism degree but no real IT background other than posting stupid articles.
What's dumb is the media hasn't latched on to the notion how Microsoft is forcing their users to change to an X Box Operating System GUI and calling it Windows 8. Talk about sheep. Yes MIcrosoft, we will follow you, even if you use the X Box GUI.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
Any most of this stuff is forgotten months later. People still buy Microsoft stuff even after that company was slammed every other day for Anti Trust violations so bad, they should have actually split MIcrosoft into two companies and had Gates, Ballmer and their lawyers taken out.
I doubt he needed to do much bullying. I bet the jurors were practically begging him to lead them through all the legal jargon and technical mumbo jumbo discussed in the courtroom so that they could just be done with this and go home.
The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.
The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.
There's a list of the jurors and their occupations if you Google it. They might not be as technically minded as you think. One managed a bike shop, one worked for a city, another was a HR consultant. There was also a social worker, one electrical engineer, one who worked in a network dept and two who were unemployed. One of them mentioned experience testing lunchbox quality.
FWIW juror interviews following the trial do credit Mr. Hogan for their understanding of the patent process (none had any experience with them besides Hogan) and particularly for his help in getting the rest of the jury to understand that prior art didn't apply to the patent validity claims, which of course isn't true. Read the interviews for yourself to get some idea of the influence Mr. Hogan held with the jury if you're in doubt.
None of this means Samsung will be at all successful with their claims of juror misconduct. The court will not spend much time with Samsung's claims, nor take it very seriously IMO based on what I've been reading about it. At the same time denying that Mr. Hogan might be singularly responsible for the jury's misunderstanding of how prior art affects patent claims and their subsequent and erroneous failure to consider validity would be equally "asinine".
What's dumb is the media hasn't latched on to the notion how Microsoft is forcing their users to change to an X Box Operating System GUI and calling it Windows 8. Talk about sheep. Yes MIcrosoft, we will follow you, even if you use the X Box GUI.
Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.
If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.
$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.
Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.
If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.
$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.
I think you meant to post that in a different thread Hill.
[SIZE=14px]There's a list of the jurors and their occupations if you Google it. They might not be as technically minded as you think. One managed a bike shop, one worked for a city, another was a HR consultant. There was also a social worker, one electrical engineer, one who worked in a network dept and two who were unemployed. One of them mentioned experience testing lunchbox quality.[/SIZE]
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">[SIZE=14px]FWIW juror interviews following the trial do credit Mr. Hogan for their understanding of the patent process (none had any experience with them besides Hogan) and particularly for his help in getting the rest of the jury to understand that prior art didn't apply to the patent validity claims, which of course isn't true. Read the interviews for yourself to get some idea of the influence Mr. Hogan held with the jury if you're in doubt.[/SIZE]</p>
<p style="margin-top:10px;border:0px;font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:19.983333587646484px;">None of this means Samsung will be at all successful with their claims of juror misconduct. The court will not spend much time with Samsung's claims, nor take it very seriously IMO based on what I've been reading about it. At the same time denying that Mr. Hogan might be singularly responsible for the jury's misunderstanding of how prior art affects patent claims and their subsequent and erroneous failure to consider validity would be equally "asinine".</p>
I have googled it. There were three others besides Hogan who would be considered well above most people in terms of understanding technical matters. I never heard of an electrical engineer, my understanding is there was a software engineer and a mechanical engineer.
Why do you claim "matter of factly" that Hogan was wrong with prior art? I followed the case and their examples to me (as a software engineer myself) did not prove prior art at all. It seems to me Hogan got that part right.
What I want to find out, and nobody seems to know, is which members Samsung and Apple picked to leave the jury pool (they got 4 each). The guy with 120 patents didn't make it as well as several other engineers who had patents. Why were they excused but Hogan allowed to stay?
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-ass isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
It is obvious that that judge was more concerned with being in the limelight, hence his childish "punishment". I question the qualifications of any judge when he resorts to using words like "cool" in his comments, then cries like a baby when those same words are used against him. He deserved to be made a fool of and was made a fool of, no matter that Apple eventually complied with the ruling. The appeals court only went along because they had to save face or is it teeth in the UK? Like so many media whores, he will probably release a "memoir" of some sort and hit the talk show circuit as well, like the other 15 minute baffoons. Apple has won more than they have lost, and it is not hurting their profit margin at all. They may win some and lose some along the way, but profits will be fine. That's what happens when you make great products. You build a following and a trust that no idiot British judge can damage. Only Apple itself can ruin that trust by putting out substandard products, and it is not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what the spec monkeys say. When Apple has to rely on BOGO promotions and Best Buy rebates to sell a product like other companies, then you will know that the trust has been broken. Until then, no worries for Apple.
Comments
Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials. Justice would slow to a crawl. Can you imagine? If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want. With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want. Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.
Originally Posted by jcallows
Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials. Justice would slow to a crawl. Can you imagine? If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want. With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want. Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.
Or purposely let jurors on that you believe will rule against you, let it happen, and then point out the biases that qualified said jurors in your mind in the first place! It's a win-win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
The outcome is not only determined by what information Hogan discussed, but what the jury instructions were, where Hogan got his information (if he did his own legal research, then the jury would be tainted), how the discussion actually went, the give and take within the jury room.
I look forward to the hearing and learning more.
Tainted?
Like Samsung's thinly veiled attempts to taint the jury by releasing disallowed evidence to the media, in some vain hope that some of the jury would disregard instructions and be exposed to the news.
Evidence that was disallowed mainly due to the Samsung legal team's failure to comply with the rules of the court in a timely manner.
Sure, but so what? The "many here" you refer to did not examine Mr. Hogan under void dire. Samsung's attorneys did. My point is that they decided after losing that they didn't like this jurist, but they were OK with him when the trial started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.
You forgot to interject the word "badly" the words Samsung and the word copied.
At least get the verbiage correct. LOL.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.
The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century.
Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.
I'd just like to make 2 points.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
"
Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
"
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
The order by the court was stupid to begin with. Apple makes their product first, Samsung, being a Supposed business partner/component supplier goes behind their back and basically copies Apple and Apple is supposed to suffer for it?
Screw Samsung. I won't ever buy a Samsung product for several reasons. I don't think they make good products. Their compent division might fabricate decent semiconductor chips, mostly because they use the latest mfg equipment made by other companies, but that's about it.
Samsung to me is just a cheaply made hunk of garbage and they don't really do anything other than try to emulate other companies original designs and throw in some useless features and bribe people into selling them.
Originally Posted by drblank
You forgot to interject the word "badly" the words Samsung and the word copied.
At least get the verbiage correct. LOL.....
I badly copied their bad copying.
Too meta?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.
The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century.
Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.
I'd just like to make 2 points.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
"
Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
"
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
The journalists that are slamming Apple are Windows and/or Android users. It's been like that for years. Nothing new. In fact, some of these journalists are STUPID idiots with a journalism degree but no real IT background other than posting stupid articles.
What's dumb is the media hasn't latched on to the notion how Microsoft is forcing their users to change to an X Box Operating System GUI and calling it Windows 8. Talk about sheep. Yes MIcrosoft, we will follow you, even if you use the X Box GUI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I badly copied their bad copying.
Too meta?
hahahaha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I badly copied their bad copying.
Too meta?
At least you aren't forcing people into using the X Box GUI and calling it Windows 8. That's even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.
The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century.
Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.
I'd just like to make 2 points.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
"
Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
"
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
Any most of this stuff is forgotten months later. People still buy Microsoft stuff even after that company was slammed every other day for Anti Trust violations so bad, they should have actually split MIcrosoft into two companies and had Gates, Ballmer and their lawyers taken out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows
I doubt he needed to do much bullying. I bet the jurors were practically begging him to lead them through all the legal jargon and technical mumbo jumbo discussed in the courtroom so that they could just be done with this and go home.
The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.
There's a list of the jurors and their occupations if you Google it. They might not be as technically minded as you think. One managed a bike shop, one worked for a city, another was a HR consultant. There was also a social worker, one electrical engineer, one who worked in a network dept and two who were unemployed. One of them mentioned experience testing lunchbox quality.
FWIW juror interviews following the trial do credit Mr. Hogan for their understanding of the patent process (none had any experience with them besides Hogan) and particularly for his help in getting the rest of the jury to understand that prior art didn't apply to the patent validity claims, which of course isn't true. Read the interviews for yourself to get some idea of the influence Mr. Hogan held with the jury if you're in doubt.
None of this means Samsung will be at all successful with their claims of juror misconduct. The court will not spend much time with Samsung's claims, nor take it very seriously IMO based on what I've been reading about it. At the same time denying that Mr. Hogan might be singularly responsible for the jury's misunderstanding of how prior art affects patent claims and their subsequent and erroneous failure to consider validity would be equally "asinine".
Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.
If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.
$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.
If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.
$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.
I think you meant to post that in a different thread Hill.
Why do you claim "matter of factly" that Hogan was wrong with prior art? I followed the case and their examples to me (as a software engineer myself) did not prove prior art at all. It seems to me Hogan got that part right.
What I want to find out, and nobody seems to know, is which members Samsung and Apple picked to leave the jury pool (they got 4 each). The guy with 120 patents didn't make it as well as several other engineers who had patents. Why were they excused but Hogan allowed to stay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.
The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century.
Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.
I'd just like to make 2 points.
1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-ass isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.
but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like
"
Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
"
2. It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.
Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.
But it sure is entertaining. :-)
It is obvious that that judge was more concerned with being in the limelight, hence his childish "punishment". I question the qualifications of any judge when he resorts to using words like "cool" in his comments, then cries like a baby when those same words are used against him. He deserved to be made a fool of and was made a fool of, no matter that Apple eventually complied with the ruling. The appeals court only went along because they had to save face or is it teeth in the UK? Like so many media whores, he will probably release a "memoir" of some sort and hit the talk show circuit as well, like the other 15 minute baffoons. Apple has won more than they have lost, and it is not hurting their profit margin at all. They may win some and lose some along the way, but profits will be fine. That's what happens when you make great products. You build a following and a trust that no idiot British judge can damage. Only Apple itself can ruin that trust by putting out substandard products, and it is not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what the spec monkeys say. When Apple has to rely on BOGO promotions and Best Buy rebates to sell a product like other companies, then you will know that the trust has been broken. Until then, no worries for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.
Damaging their reputation? The only thing that folk will remember is the idiot judge saying that 'Samsung wasn't as as cool.'
And they'll forget that quickly enough too.
Still, if the judge is out to get headlines out of a exceptionally dull case, then Apple should stop obliging him.