Anyone lying while they are under oath is committing perjury. Obviously a corporation can't testify, people do. Mere opinions that differ don't qualify as perjury . I has to be a material fact that the witness deliberately lied about. hi a Samsung employee said " no, we didn't consider the slide-lock of Apple when creating ours'" and then Apple presented a signed document by that employee that said "copy exactly how Apple's slide to unlock feature works and operates, then that employee could conceivably, face perjury charges, if the gov't wanted to pursue it.
All these document slides seem awfully bad for their case. Is Samsung denying that Apple has the ability to patent their slide feature, or are they saying theirs differs and they did not copy Apple's. If it's the latter, Samsung is going to be in a world of hurt, with all those internal Samsung documents presented. Anyone with half a brain, can see that Samsung copied the iPhone. The thing I don't understand is if the jury gets to decide if the patent was rightfully granted. I wish AI would explain this better. That is, what's the jury being asked to decide on. Has it already been decided that Apple owns the patent or is the jury deciding that? Comments?
It is so incredibly annoying, time after time, year after year to see employees (so-called leaders and regular employees) lie for their company to keep their jobs. What seems so over-the-top is that when this is a "culture" thing it doesn't matter if they get caught, nor proven to be falsifiers and outright liars, all that matters is how it affects their aims: to dominate, sell the most and if it takes illogical lies, it still doesn't matter. The truth never matters to Samsung.
Aren't we sure that even if Apple tries to play fair they know in their legal processes they are going to have to be held to a higher standard than Samsung? At one time Japan was looked at as totally untrustworthy after the War (WWII). Now we do a lot of honest business with them (maybe Toyota has been the exception). China was impossible in their lying, and still is when they DENY attacking our defense agencies (via internet). Why not just admit it--what would we do about it?
The Malaysian people don't trust their own government because of the C370 fiasco.
But when it comes to baldfaced lying, no one can top these South Koreans, especially their industries, and especially their tech industries... but Samsung is unbelievably and absolutely at the top, making everyone else in their business (even the Americans working for them) appear to not even approximately fathom the value of ethics and trust. Our own clandestine agencies can't hold a candle to Samsung. There is NO regard to perjury. Nothing matters except to steal and lie to get what they want. They have been doing this for so many years they view it as "what we do must be right!"
When caught they still deny. When they finally admit to something rotten, they will use that admission as a new tactic to show a new face and declare that patents don't mean very much and therefore the penalties to theft should not be big! Their lack of logic is beyond all understanding except to mock the rest of the civilized world.
No Samsung phone, no refrigerators, no TVs... nothing...I will never buy another Samsung product, knowingly, of ANY kind made by Samsung. I started with Wal-Mart and have stuck to that. Samsung, you are next. Actually you have been so for quite a while.
Well said. It is so obvious that Samsung wanted their phones to function and look as closely to that of the iPhone. The same could be said of many hardware companies, to a lesser degree. All these documents from Samsung, say as much. In these internal documents the solution was always: make ours like Apple, since surveys show that consumers prefer this or that feature over ours. It's in black and white. How can they deny it. It's sickening.
Shamesung S5 lineup!
Those Judges they need to take their heads from their butts..can they see Shamesung copies everything from Apple inclunding their ways
These "customers" were likely paid to stand in line. I think I see Lebron and Ortiz crouching in the back of that pic. The S5 sure is selling week. So wel, in fact, they now have BO GO deals at Verizon.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> SAMSUNG IS JUST A MARKETING COMPANY! " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
They’ve admitted it themselves! No one supporting them has any argument whatsoever.
A real bad one!
People who buys S5 ALSO thinks this video is neat...so we should be happy about Shamesung taking those people from Apple!
It's perjury to be caught lying on the stand. Also remember that Samsung isn't taking the stand, but rather is the defense.
Anyone who testifies under oath is subject to perjury laws. Samsung is contesting Apple's claims, has went to trial, and will be calling many experts, witnesses, et al. Hypothetically, even if they stood mute, Apple would force Samsung employees to the stand to question them.
So they admit their smartphones don't sell on their own merits. Gotcha.
If Apple's devices sold just fine on their own merits, why would they do any marketing at all?
Nobody sells devices purely on the device's merit any more. They sell the device plus a carefully cultivated aura of quality, respectability, reliability and more. And all that's built up by advertising, whether directly (company pays for ads) or indirectly (users spread awareness through word-of-mouth).
Also, advertising makes customers aware that your product exists at all. This is why you see so many stupid or incomprehensible ads on TV: it sticks in your head as 'that stupid Mercedes commercial'. If you tried to name companies that produce a particular product, the majority of the names (and all the ones you give first) are very likely to be those with a big advertising presence, regardless of the quality of their adverts!
Lack of advertising presence is one of the big problems HTC faces, for example. While their phones have a great build quality and their software's pretty good, people simply aren't properly aware of them. Samsung's greatest triump wasn't copying the iPhone, it wasn't their sales or financial or shipped figures, and it wasn't their transition into a major player in the smartphone market. It was making people aware that their products existed, and convincing them that they represented a valid alternative to the iPhone.
According to multiple in-court reports, Samsung opened up week three of the second Apple v. Samsung patent trial by forwarded its argument that the Korean company's massive success in the smartphone industry owes to strong marketing, not alleged copying of Apple's patented iPhone features...
...According to testimony from Samsung America's chief marketing officer Todd Pendleton, the company had a major branding problem when it came to smartphones. Pendleton said that when he joined Samsung in 2011, he did not know the company even had a smartphone lineup.
"I think people knew Samsung for televisions," Pendleton said. "But in terms of smartphones, there was no recognition for what our product was or what it stood for."
So Samsung's success was due to marketing?
Marketing that a guy employed as "Chief Marketing Officer" by Samsung and presented as an expert in the field of marketing, apparently had never heard of.
So I guess it was copying of the iPhone in 2010 by the Galaxy S that was the real reason for Samsung's success after all.
As for Samsung's marketing, I guess that consists of hiring dumb celebrities to send out tweets about how great Samsung is from their iPhones and running tv spots where they insult Apple users.
The people who fall for that aren't that bright.
That's not as effective as all the posters, and advertisements one is bombarded with whenever they enter a cell phone store.
If by marketing you meaning bribing the unsuspecting public into using your devices by giving them away in ludicrous POGO offers and then poorly fabricating "cool" by paying celebrities to tweet about your product using those iPhones... Sure?
Sounds like that "popular" girl I knew in high school who used "marketing" to get the boys to "love" her...
The litmus test is going to be now. It's 2 years since the SGS 3 was released. If people didn't have a good experience with it they should be switching to something else. This quarter, and the impending iPhone release should make for some interesting stats.
Of course we all know that Samsung's Marketing differentiation strategy is to be a cheaper copy. The difference is summed up in the claim "Like an iPhone, but cheaper!" They need to be as identical as possible for this to work, but with cheaper prices. Price dumping in other words.
I’m sorry pals, but Samsung is right in saying that it was their marketing that made the Galaxy’s success... Just take a look at the marketing primer that was used everywhere: "Galaxy, just like the iPhone!"
[QUOTE]When asked if Samsung stole "slide-to-unlock" from Apple, Kim said, "Absolutely not. If we were to work on the same thing as Apple, that would not give us any advantage in terms of differentiating our products, so that would not make any sense."[/QUOTE]
wowsa, if this truly was the case Samsung would not have been sued by samsung.
so all the geniuses/ smart people in Google love letting people get ahead by copying off of their tests when they were in school... they loved doing other people's homework for free!... and all the people at Apple where the unfriendly sorts that said no you will not copy off my test that's cheating !... no I will not do your homework... and dealt with the consequences.
I wonder about Google's employees when they were in school and creating projects... did they allow other students to copy their projects, and then go ahead and say oh "well they copied my idea ".... I have to think of another one, I have more ideas than I know what to do with...
so, in school it's not acceptable to copy a person's project, but in the workplace it is necessary?...
Finally, Samsung called up Google engineers to testify that certain features seen in its phones, like data syncing, are core functions of the Android operating system. This is the second time the case's defense attorneys called on Google to prove certain features alleged to infringe on Apple patents were created by the Mountain View, Calif. tech giant. The move is, in effect, using Google as a shield to Apple's claims.
I'm sorry your honor, it was Google that made the cocaine. We only sold it. Blame them.
Comments
Anyone with half a brain, can see that Samsung copied the iPhone. The thing I don't understand is if the jury gets to decide if the patent was rightfully granted. I wish AI would explain this better. That is, what's the jury being asked to decide on. Has it already been decided that Apple owns the patent or is the jury deciding that? Comments?
Shamesung S5 lineup!
Those Judges they need to take their heads from their butts..can they see Shamesung copies everything from Apple inclunding their ways
Well said. It is so obvious that Samsung wanted their phones to function and look as closely to that of the iPhone. The same could be said of many hardware companies, to a lesser degree. All these documents from Samsung, say as much. In these internal documents the solution was always: make ours like Apple, since surveys show that consumers prefer this or that feature over ours. It's in black and white. How can they deny it. It's sickening.
They’ve admitted it themselves! No one supporting them has any argument whatsoever.
A real bad one!
People who buys S5 ALSO thinks this video is neat...so we should be happy about Shamesung taking those people from Apple!
Anyone who testifies under oath is subject to perjury laws. Samsung is contesting Apple's claims, has went to trial, and will be calling many experts, witnesses, et al. Hypothetically, even if they stood mute, Apple would force Samsung employees to the stand to question them.
So they admit their smartphones don't sell on their own merits. Gotcha.
If Apple's devices sold just fine on their own merits, why would they do any marketing at all?
Nobody sells devices purely on the device's merit any more. They sell the device plus a carefully cultivated aura of quality, respectability, reliability and more. And all that's built up by advertising, whether directly (company pays for ads) or indirectly (users spread awareness through word-of-mouth).
Also, advertising makes customers aware that your product exists at all. This is why you see so many stupid or incomprehensible ads on TV: it sticks in your head as 'that stupid Mercedes commercial'. If you tried to name companies that produce a particular product, the majority of the names (and all the ones you give first) are very likely to be those with a big advertising presence, regardless of the quality of their adverts!
Lack of advertising presence is one of the big problems HTC faces, for example. While their phones have a great build quality and their software's pretty good, people simply aren't properly aware of them. Samsung's greatest triump wasn't copying the iPhone, it wasn't their sales or financial or shipped figures, and it wasn't their transition into a major player in the smartphone market. It was making people aware that their products existed, and convincing them that they represented a valid alternative to the iPhone.
Good lord, Samsung is vile. I mean, at this point, they're not even really trying to hide it.
Employees who were hired and didn't even know Samsung sold smartphones? Come on. What sort of quack would believe that even for a second?
What an empty, filthy, dishonest, and despicable company devoid of any real value, meaning or ethics.
And that's just Apple! Goodness knows what Slamscum are like!
According to multiple in-court reports, Samsung opened up week three of the second Apple v. Samsung patent trial by forwarded its argument that the Korean company's massive success in the smartphone industry owes to strong marketing, not alleged copying of Apple's patented iPhone features...
...According to testimony from Samsung America's chief marketing officer Todd Pendleton, the company had a major branding problem when it came to smartphones. Pendleton said that when he joined Samsung in 2011, he did not know the company even had a smartphone lineup.
"I think people knew Samsung for televisions," Pendleton said. "But in terms of smartphones, there was no recognition for what our product was or what it stood for."
So Samsung's success was due to marketing?
Marketing that a guy employed as "Chief Marketing Officer" by Samsung and presented as an expert in the field of marketing, apparently had never heard of.
So I guess it was copying of the iPhone in 2010 by the Galaxy S that was the real reason for Samsung's success after all.
That's not as effective as all the posters, and advertisements one is bombarded with whenever they enter a cell phone store.
The litmus test is going to be now. It's 2 years since the SGS 3 was released. If people didn't have a good experience with it they should be switching to something else. This quarter, and the impending iPhone release should make for some interesting stats.
I’m sorry pals, but Samsung is right in saying that it was their marketing that made the Galaxy’s success... Just take a look at the marketing primer that was used everywhere: "Galaxy, just like the iPhone!"
wowsa, if this truly was the case Samsung would not have been sued by samsung.
so all the geniuses/ smart people in Google love letting people get ahead by copying off of their tests when they were in school... they loved doing other people's homework for free!...
and all the people at Apple where the unfriendly sorts that said no you will not copy off my test that's cheating !... no I will not do your homework... and dealt with the consequences.
I wonder about Google's employees when they were in school and creating projects... did they allow other students to copy their projects, and then go ahead and say oh "well they copied my idea "....
I have to think of another one, I have more ideas than I know what to do with...
so, in school it's not acceptable to copy a person's project, but in the workplace it is necessary?...
I'm sorry your honor, it was Google that made the cocaine. We only sold it. Blame them.
What a joke.