Wow, a good number of people on this and other sites loved her last year, thinking she was hard on samsung. Now, after this, she becomes nothing more than a biased Korean? Wow.
Apple really needs to put Ben Bernanke on the board (as some financial adviser) as he is near the retirement from the FED! This will resolve all the issues (From WS bashing to Copycat companies)
This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.
This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.
Not so sure that the comments about Judge Koh are racist in the strictest sense. She's not being denigrated because of some perceived inferiority based on her race. She's being accused of being biased because of a race-based conflict of interest. Psychology has long shown that people instinctively cut others slack if they share some profound commonality with them. Judges obviously have to fight against this in themselves constantly. But because the argument is between two parties who represent Korean and American interests, even the perception of bias should be avoided. A wise Judge would put that perception before any ego-based impulse to prove that her racial/cultural background does not effect her fairness.
This makes no sense. Samsung previously tried to have major portions thrown out because Apple patents wee being reexamined by the USPTO and were "temporarily" invalid. Koh ruled against Samsung basically because the patents were valid at the time of the trial and there was no way to know if they would eventually be invalidated or stay valid in full or part.
I'd like to hear her reasons. Is there any source posted yet that goes into this in detail?
So I thought this case was purely about damages for the patents, which a jury already found Samsung guilty of infringing, which Samsung's attorneys came out and admitted.
So where does removing four of them fit into the scheme of things?
Now that the Jusge has brought ruling on infringement of patents back to the table, Apple should introduce more of them.
This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.
Ford owns Aston Martin. So Aston can't claim anything.
The only interesting question raised by today's ruling was "WHY" did four patents get tossed? AI totally failed to address that point. But old topics were rehashed. Par for the course.
This makes no sense. Samsung previously tried to have major portions thrown out because Apple patents wee being reexamined by the USPTO and were "temporarily" invalid. Koh ruled against Samsung basically because the patents were valid at the time of the trial and there was no way to know if they would eventually be invalidated or stay valid in full or part.
I'd like to hear her reasons. Is there any source posted yet that goes into this in detail?
So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that [B]additional damages for lost profits[/B] on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.
So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that additional damages for lost profits on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.
That makes more sense.
Tomorrow's news: "Apple lawyers calculate and argue the valuation of the one remaining 'pinch to zoom' patent for lost profits was worth about $110 million of the $114 million they previously calculated for all 5 patents arguing 'even Samsung thinks rounded corners weren't worth much'"
Lawyers are fun when you yourself aren't in their crosshairs.
Wow, you're comments are as deplorable as they are completely ignorant. This article doesn't contain any information on the basis of the dismissal and the bandwagon is starting up that it's because she's Korean? Have you been following the action with Judge Koh? She is the one who has overseen the largest damage verdict against Samsung in any venue.
I'm not saying I know her to be an excellent Judge. Clearly no one here is questioning the ruling on any legal basis, at least not so far. So to champion your ignorance as to EVEN IF this is a poor ruling, you've jumped to the motive of this Judge and impugned her character.
Please explain how linking somebody with Korean descent to a Korean company is racism.
I suppose if she was your friend, you would think of her as your "Korean friend". The judge is from the US. She's of Korean descent. All I can add is that you may want to think on that. I don't see how anyone could fail to grasp the concept given enough time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype
Oh please. She's Korean and is shilling for a Korean company. That SHOULD raise some eyebrows.
She's not Korean outside of race. Do you refer to Black people as African? I'm familiar with the term "African American", but I suspect you do not expect your colleagues to send you spam email just because of their skin color. Your assertion here has about the same amount of validity. Right now you are pegging someone to a geographic location where they didn't grow up.
Comments
Koreans are cool, Samsung not so much
One has to wonder what the value of patents are if judges fail to allow companies and individuals to properly defend them.
The gentry class only likes battles between the rich killing the poor (pulling down the powerless), rich on rich they never want to enforce anything.
Apple really needs to put Ben Bernanke on the board (as some financial adviser) as he is near the retirement from the FED! This will resolve all the issues (From WS bashing to Copycat companies)
Yes. This is racist.
I'd like to hear her reasons. Is there any source posted yet that goes into this in detail?
So where does removing four of them fit into the scheme of things?
Now that the Jusge has brought ruling on infringement of patents back to the table, Apple should introduce more of them.
Ford owns Aston Martin. So Aston can't claim anything.
Might FaceTime wife on her iPad and laugh at your puny, tiny expensive Note 3 which you can poke with a stick.
Same goes for you.
Korean is not a race
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0J01S120131115?irpc=932
So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that additional damages for lost profits on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.
That makes more sense.
Tomorrow's news: "Apple lawyers calculate and argue the valuation of the one remaining 'pinch to zoom' patent for lost profits was worth about $110 million of the $114 million they previously calculated for all 5 patents arguing 'even Samsung thinks rounded corners weren't worth much'"
Lawyers are fun when you yourself aren't in their crosshairs.
I'm not saying I know her to be an excellent Judge. Clearly no one here is questioning the ruling on any legal basis, at least not so far. So to champion your ignorance as to EVEN IF this is a poor ruling, you've jumped to the motive of this Judge and impugned her character.
When did AppleInsider become a haven for trolls?
Please explain how linking somebody with Korean descent to a Korean company is racism.
I suppose if she was your friend, you would think of her as your "Korean friend". The judge is from the US. She's of Korean descent. All I can add is that you may want to think on that. I don't see how anyone could fail to grasp the concept given enough time.
Oh please. She's Korean and is shilling for a Korean company. That SHOULD raise some eyebrows.
She's not Korean outside of race. Do you refer to Black people as African? I'm familiar with the term "African American", but I suspect you do not expect your colleagues to send you spam email just because of their skin color. Your assertion here has about the same amount of validity. Right now you are pegging someone to a geographic location where they didn't grow up.