Most people will be in with the lawyer on this one and not have a clue. Most non-tech people don't know what aspect ratio even is. Samsung copies Apple as does the rest of the world. Most people just try to use them as an example though and don't copy so blatantly. I really do hope Samsung gets a smack down. If nothing else, Apple stops using Samsung one component at a time until they are not an Apple supplier. Rule number one is to not piss off your biggest customer. You would think they would be more willing to make a deal and change their designs enough to appease Apple. The 10% smack down they got on the rumor for iPad RAM is just the beginning.
I get what you're saying and agree, but the lawyer isn't most people, he's getting paid handsomely to defend his clients product. Him of all people should've been an expert in picking out his clients product.
AppleInsider - Please stop displaying ads for Samsung in your RSS feed. It is really making me ill
I've always thought that competitive ads on an Apple-centric board were odd.
On another subject: I saw a BlackBerry ad recently. I felt like I had seen the first robin of Spring. Well, technically it wasn't a Blackberry ad as much as it was an AT&T ad, but still...
It only takes 12 PopsiclePete wrappers to get a free BB phone now. They throw it in with the free decoder ring.
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
I fail to see how what I've said is racist at all. I also fail to see how, in an international dispute, finding a judge with a stake in neither country to arbitrate is difficult or unnecessary.
I think you can see why things like country of descent, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should never be a reason for recusal (as opposed to things like stock ownership).
Saying those should never be ground for recusal is not very objective. Humans have biases, even judges.
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
Leave it to some lefties to take a comment out of context, exaggerate it beyond recognition, and pull on the emo heart strings to both try and fail to make a point. It is certainly okay to question whether she may be biased, just as much as it is okay to assume that she isn't.
Apple even beats Samsung in paid-off forum users, getting their checks out faster…
Also, those checks from Samsung are going to take longer now that they took that 10 billion dollar hit for pissing off Apple. That's a long time to wait just to play racquetball since that's all a check from Samsung will be good for after it eventually arrives... if it ever does.
It's like Apple has Samsung in a chokehold and is asking it "why are you hitting yourself?"
If it's a case like this between companies based in different countries, the judge shouldn't have any ties to either country. There're other conditions, of course.
To be fair, there's no evidence that Koh has any ties to Korea other than her heritage. That is not grounds for recusal. Even if she did have ties to Korea, it's irrelevant. As long as she had no ties to Samsung, she would be OK hearing the case.
She just produced some bone-headed decisions without having an apparent bias.
I fail to see how what I've said is racist at all. I also fail to see how, in an international dispute, finding a judge with a stake in neither country to arbitrate is difficult or unnecessary.
I believe the replies are pointed at the fact that you assumed that because she is an American of Korean descent she's somehow biased towards that country. Which perhaps isn't racists but it is still wrong. And if Apple believed your opinion to be correct they would just use the fact that she didn't recuse herself when she should have as a reason to grant an appeal etc
I believe the replies are pointed at the fact that you assumed that because she is an American of Korean descent she's somehow biased towards that country. Which perhaps isn't racists but it is still wrong. And if Apple believed your opinion to be correct they would just use the fact that she didn't recuse herself when she should have as a reason to grant an appeal etc
I actually didn't know she was an American of Korean descent.
I don't think she should be doing this were she an American OR a Korean, but that's me. People say "stake in the company", but when Samsung matters as much as it does to South Korea and when Apple matters as much as it does to the US, there's stake whether or not the person in question holds shares or what have you.
I actually didn't know she was an American of Korean descent.
I don't think she should be doing this were she an American OR a Korean, but that's me. People say "stake in the company", but when Samsung matters as much as it does to South Korea and when Apple matters as much as it does to the US, there's stake whether or not the person in question holds shares or what have you.
I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. I'd rather the judge have no potential ties, connections, or even interest in either side of an argument. That's next to impossible, sure, as there will always be some prior knowledge of the parties in the courtroom (and, well, people will forget or even lie), but you can certainly try. I want my judges to care for nothing but the truth.
Comments
I get what you're saying and agree, but the lawyer isn't most people, he's getting paid handsomely to defend his clients product. Him of all people should've been an expert in picking out his clients product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
AppleInsider - Please stop displaying ads for Samsung in your RSS feed. It is really making me ill
I've always thought that competitive ads on an Apple-centric board were odd.
On another subject: I saw a BlackBerry ad recently. I felt like I had seen the first robin of Spring. Well, technically it wasn't a Blackberry ad as much as it was an AT&T ad, but still...
It only takes 12 Popsicle Pete wrappers to get a free BB phone now. They throw it in with the free decoder ring.
Deleted by poster.
So no American lawyers can represent Apple? You mental processes seriously need to be recalibrated
@Tallest Skil
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
I fail to see how what I've said is racist at all. I also fail to see how, in an international dispute, finding a judge with a stake in neither country to arbitrate is difficult or unnecessary.
What does any of this have to do with lawyers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
And it looks like the Samsung sexual favours aren't! ;-)
eeewwww....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
Like the ones Google offers up tenfold?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
I think you can see why things like country of descent, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should never be a reason for recusal (as opposed to things like stock ownership).Saying those should never be ground for recusal is not very objective. Humans have biases, even judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
@Tallest Skil
NO TIES TO EITHER COUNTRY? So we need to import barristers from England to represent Apple and Samsung? You seem to be spouting racist comments and .... your comments are simply stoopid as well.
Leave it to some lefties to take a comment out of context, exaggerate it beyond recognition, and pull on the emo heart strings to both try and fail to make a point. It is certainly okay to question whether she may be biased, just as much as it is okay to assume that she isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
eeewwww....
Did you get your royalty check from Samsung yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Did you get your royalty check from Samsung yet?
No not yet, willing to share some of yours from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Did you get your royalty check from Samsung yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
No not yet, willing to share some of yours from Apple.
Apple even beats Samsung in paid-off forum users, getting their checks out faster…
Also, those checks from Samsung are going to take longer now that they took that 10 billion dollar hit for pissing off Apple. That's a long time to wait just to play racquetball since that's all a check from Samsung will be good for after it eventually arrives... if it ever does.
It's like Apple has Samsung in a chokehold and is asking it "why are you hitting yourself?"
Cool story bro, tell it again.
To be fair, there's no evidence that Koh has any ties to Korea other than her heritage. That is not grounds for recusal. Even if she did have ties to Korea, it's irrelevant. As long as she had no ties to Samsung, she would be OK hearing the case.
She just produced some bone-headed decisions without having an apparent bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I fail to see how what I've said is racist at all. I also fail to see how, in an international dispute, finding a judge with a stake in neither country to arbitrate is difficult or unnecessary.
I believe the replies are pointed at the fact that you assumed that because she is an American of Korean descent she's somehow biased towards that country. Which perhaps isn't racists but it is still wrong. And if Apple believed your opinion to be correct they would just use the fact that she didn't recuse herself when she should have as a reason to grant an appeal etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I believe the replies are pointed at the fact that you assumed that because she is an American of Korean descent she's somehow biased towards that country. Which perhaps isn't racists but it is still wrong. And if Apple believed your opinion to be correct they would just use the fact that she didn't recuse herself when she should have as a reason to grant an appeal etc
I actually didn't know she was an American of Korean descent.
I don't think she should be doing this were she an American OR a Korean, but that's me. People say "stake in the company", but when Samsung matters as much as it does to South Korea and when Apple matters as much as it does to the US, there's stake whether or not the person in question holds shares or what have you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I actually didn't know she was an American of Korean descent.
I don't think she should be doing this were she an American OR a Korean, but that's me. People say "stake in the company", but when Samsung matters as much as it does to South Korea and when Apple matters as much as it does to the US, there's stake whether or not the person in question holds shares or what have you.
Bigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
Bigot.
I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. I'd rather the judge have no potential ties, connections, or even interest in either side of an argument. That's next to impossible, sure, as there will always be some prior knowledge of the parties in the courtroom (and, well, people will forget or even lie), but you can certainly try. I want my judges to care for nothing but the truth.