Unbelievable. The Judge found that Samsung did not copy Apple designs and yet so many people are still whining like a bunch of babies. Get over it. Apple lost. It's no big deal. Move on. I doubt it's going to stop anyone buying an iPad in the future. There is always a risk when you take legal action that it will backfire. I'm sure if the appeal is dismissed Apple will eat some humble pie and move on.
<div class="quote-container">
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Quadra 610</strong> <a href="/t/151554/apple-wins-stay-on-posting-samsung-did-not-copy-ipad-uk-notice#post_2155181"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<p>
Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll <strong>never</strong> see this ruling stick. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p id="yui_3_4_1_1_1343355446924_1451">
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9101/"><img data-id="9101" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9101/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p id="yui_3_4_1_1_1343355446924_2140">
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9102/"><img data-id="9102" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9102/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
It's easy to cherry-pick devices to make a point like this. I'm sure I could pick a handful of Apple's devices and make it look like they've copied Sony (which, of course, they haven't). A couple of Samsung's phones are a complete rip-off of Apple's designs but the vast majority follow a clear evolution in Samsung design that started well before the iPhone.</p>
Samsung's counter image is ridiculous. They are trying to prove a negative by saying "look, here are a bunch of phones we've made that don't rip off iPhone, ergo none of our designs rip off iPhone"
The fact that Samsung still make (less successful) phones based on their old designs does not diminish the fact that some of their new designs are direct copies of the iPhone and iPad.
To prove their case they don't need to produce examples of new designs that *don't* look like iPhone, they need to produce examples of old (pre-iPhone) designs that *do* look like iPhone.
From their own picture it is evident that none of their old "bar-type" designs look as much like an iPhone as the Galaxy series does.
So, a company [Apple] which never produced any phones before suddenly, out of the blue, came up with a magical phone like no other, a divinely inspiration. I don't think so.
In 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Pradaalready released working products, not just an empty shell with a logo on it. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. If you marry the two phones above, you'll get a bastard phone which is named, strangely enough, not an I-bastard but an Iphone.
Then Apple came up with this exhibit believed to be its 2006 phone prototype:
But, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototype" looks, Apple chose to use Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." or even "stolen from..." Sony. Hilarious! I don't know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple. Methink, Sony should sue the crap out of crApple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of the I-bastard, ehrl, Iphone device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Concept designs. Anyone can pull concept designs straight out of their ass. One of them went on to be the F700. In which case Samsung's argument would be no better than Prada's.
The iPhone was already in development years before its release.
So, a company [Apple] which never produced any phones before suddenly, out of the blue, came up with a magical phone like no other, a divinely inspiration. I don't think so.
In 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Pradaalready released working products, not just an empty shell with a logo on it. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. If you marry the two phones above, you'll get a bastard phone which is named, strangely enough, not an I-bastard but an Iphone.
Then Apple came up with this exhibit believed to be its 2006 phone prototype:
But, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototype" looks, Apple chose to use Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." or even "stolen from..." Sony. Hilarious! I don't know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple. Methink, Sony should sue the crap out of crApple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of the I-bastard, ehrl, Iphone device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Development of the iPhone began in 2005 ore even earlier. We know that much.
Unfortunatly none of the phones pictured are actually turned on.
Also, one would think that if Samsung were such an innovator and had forseen a vision of touch screen smartphones in the near future, with such a deep, deep history making phones that they would have written their own OS. But no, they used Android, which happened to be written by a company who's CEO just happened to have a sneak peak at a finished product.
These pictures are misleading. The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular. Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones. These pictures don't prove a thing.
The only thing that's actually misleading here is your use of a confused cause and effect fallacy as an argument. Smart phones gained popularity because of the iPhone, not the other way around. You also had people using high-end Nokias and BlackBerries, which were smartphones, and despite that, their designs did not survive or had to change after the iPhone came out, whereas the iPhone retains essentially the same design.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that the market would have shifted the way of the iPhone had the iPhone never actually existed (the LG Prada, released 4 months before the iPhone and which people claim Apple copied, never saw much success), but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that everyone switched to an iPhone-style after the iPhone came out.
Regarding to different independent rumors, Judge Colin Birss is member and Fan of FC Chelsea football club, which has the main sponsor SAMSUNG. So it is highly reliable that he is biased. Further there is not any chance for a final stay of this decision, because it infringes several aspects of european laws, especially because in other EU countries trials decided contrary. A publication f.e. in the international edition of newspapers would so contradict other european courts decisions. Probable that this judges career tends to its end now.
Samsung's counter image is ridiculous. They are trying to prove a negative by saying "look, here are a bunch of phones we've made that don't rip off iPhone, ergo none of our designs rip off iPhone"
The fact that Samsung still make (less successful) phones based on their old designs does not diminish the fact that some of their new designs are direct copies of the iPhone and iPad.
To prove their case they don't need to produce examples of new designs that *don't* look like iPhone, they need to produce examples of old (pre-iPhone) designs that *do* look like iPhone.
From their own picture it is evident that none of their old "bar-type" designs look as much like an iPhone as the Galaxy series does.
In addition, the pictures Samsung provided are mostly prototypes. In a sense, they make Samsung's argument weaker, not stronger. That photo essentially proves that Samsung was thinking "there are lots of other designs that we could have used and we even made prototypes of a lot of other designs that are significantly different than the iPhone, but after the iPhone came out, we chose the design that looked the closest to the iPhone." They essentially proved Apple's case.
In addition, the pictures Samsung provided are mostly prototypes. In a sense, they make Samsung's argument weaker, not stronger. That photo essentially proves that Samsung was thinking "there are lots of other designs that we could have used and we even made prototypes of a lot of other designs that are significantly different than the iPhone, but after the iPhone came out, we chose the design that looked the closest to the iPhone." They essentially proved Apple's case.
Bingo. Good night. 'Nuff has been said by sensible people here. Of course AI Forums is popcorn entertainment for me, but I gotta go now.
Hrmmmm.....the subject is trial strategy. Here we have an opinion as to trial strategy by a person who has never been to law school, not even the worst law school in the entire country, not even attaining a rank of the bottom of the class. A guy who has never, not even once in his life, decided upon proper trial strategy.
And he's saying that the trial strategy is 180 degrees off - that it does not advance the case, but instead, that it proves the case brought by the other side.
And on the other side, we have the law firm of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, a Madison Avenue firm, with some of the best legal minds on the country. The lead attorney in the case is Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. Who is this guy who supposedly commits a gaffe so horrendous that he proves Apple's case for them? Who is he?
In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the Daily Journal as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in California. In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by The National Law Journal as one of 10 top lawyers in "Winning," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators. In January 2010, The American Lawyer awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by IP Law and Business. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was The American Lawyer's list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45. In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the California Daily Journal as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state. The Journal reported: "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene." In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by California Law Business as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old. Chambers USA has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property. Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source IP Law and Business, April 2003). Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 13-0.
Sorry, but given a choice between a distinguished, experienced trial lawyer, and some guy who has exactly ZERO credentials, ZERO experience, and ZERO credibility in the area of trial strategy, I'll pick the guy who was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the country.
Sorry, JR, but your opinion is being discarded as uninformed.
Some of the shame I felt at being a Brit (after the Judge made that stupid order) is now lifting. Let's hope his peers in a higher court order Birss to apologise to Apple.
Hrmmmm.....the subject is trial strategy. Here we have an opinion as to trial strategy by a person who has never been to law school, not even the worst law school in the entire country, not even attaining a rank of the bottom of the class. A guy who has never, not even once in his life, decided upon proper trial strategy.
And he's saying that the trial strategy is 180 degrees off - that it does not advance the case, but instead, that it proves the case brought by the other side.
And on the other side, we have the law firm of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, a Madison Avenue firm, with some of the best legal minds on the country. The lead attorney in the case is Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. Who is this guy who supposedly commits a gaffe so horrendous that he proves Apple's case for them? Who is he?
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">Daily Journal</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> as one of the "</span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">Top 100</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">" lawyers in California. In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">The National Law Journal</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> as one of 10 top lawyers in "</span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">Winning</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators. In January 2010, </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">The American Lawyer</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "</span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">IP Law and Business</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">The American Lawyer</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">The American Lawyer's</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45. In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">California Daily Journal</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state. The Journal reported: "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene." In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">California Law Business</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old. </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">Chambers USA</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;"> has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property. Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source </span>
<em style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">IP Law and Business, April 2003</em>
<span style="color:rgb(127,126,126);font-family:arial, helvetica, 'san-serif';font-size:10px;line-height:normal;">). Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 13-0. </span>
Sorry, but given a choice between a distinguished, experienced trial lawyer, and some guy who has exactly ZERO credentials, ZERO experience, and ZERO credibility in the area of trial strategy, I'll pick the guy who was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the country.
Sorry, JR, but your opinion is being discarded as uninformed.
It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick.
All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:
THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf
Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf
Unbelievable. The Judge found that Samsung did not copy Apple designs and yet so many people are still whining like a bunch of babies. Get over it. Apple lost. It's no big deal. Move on. I doubt it's going to stop anyone buying an iPad in the future. There is always a risk when you take legal action that it will backfire. I'm sure if the appeal is dismissed Apple will eat some humble pie and move on.
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Quadra 610</strong> <a href="/t/151554/apple-wins-stay-on-posting-samsung-did-not-copy-ipad-uk-notice#post_2155181"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<p>
Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll <strong>never</strong> see this ruling stick. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p id="yui_3_4_1_1_1343355446924_1451">
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9101/"><img data-id="9101" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9101/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p id="yui_3_4_1_1_1343355446924_2140">
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9102/"><img data-id="9102" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9102/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
It's easy to cherry-pick devices to make a point like this. I'm sure I could pick a handful of Apple's devices and make it look like they've copied Sony (which, of course, they haven't). A couple of Samsung's phones are a complete rip-off of Apple's designs but the vast majority follow a clear evolution in Samsung design that started well before the iPhone.</p>
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf
Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf
Samsung's counter image is ridiculous. They are trying to prove a negative by saying "look, here are a bunch of phones we've made that don't rip off iPhone, ergo none of our designs rip off iPhone"
The fact that Samsung still make (less successful) phones based on their old designs does not diminish the fact that some of their new designs are direct copies of the iPhone and iPad.
To prove their case they don't need to produce examples of new designs that *don't* look like iPhone, they need to produce examples of old (pre-iPhone) designs that *do* look like iPhone.
From their own picture it is evident that none of their old "bar-type" designs look as much like an iPhone as the Galaxy series does.
This judge needs to be fired.
Good one! Lol
So, a company [Apple] which never produced any phones before suddenly, out of the blue, came up with a magical phone like no other, a divinely inspiration. I don't think so.
In 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Prada already released working products, not just an empty shell with a logo on it. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. If you marry the two phones above, you'll get a bastard phone which is named, strangely enough, not an I-bastard but an Iphone.
Then Apple came up with this exhibit believed to be its 2006 phone prototype:
But, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototype" looks, Apple chose to use Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." or even "stolen from..." Sony. Hilarious! I don't know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple. Methink, Sony should sue the crap out of crApple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of the I-bastard, ehrl, Iphone device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Of course they are
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf
Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf
Concept designs. Anyone can pull concept designs straight out of their ass. One of them went on to be the F700. In which case Samsung's argument would be no better than Prada's.
The iPhone was already in development years before its release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
So, a company [Apple] which never produced any phones before suddenly, out of the blue, came up with a magical phone like no other, a divinely inspiration. I don't think so.
In 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Prada already released working products, not just an empty shell with a logo on it. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. If you marry the two phones above, you'll get a bastard phone which is named, strangely enough, not an I-bastard but an Iphone.
Then Apple came up with this exhibit believed to be its 2006 phone prototype:
But, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototype" looks, Apple chose to use Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." or even "stolen from..." Sony. Hilarious! I don't know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple. Methink, Sony should sue the crap out of crApple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of the I-bastard, ehrl, Iphone device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Development of the iPhone began in 2005 ore even earlier. We know that much.
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone
Nor was iPhone development such a big secret.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/timeline-apple-iphone-rumors-1999-present
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
THose images are from Apple http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72312appletrialbrief.pdf
Why don't you also post image from Samsung? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/72412samsungtrialbrief.pdf
Unfortunatly none of the phones pictured are actually turned on.
Also, one would think that if Samsung were such an innovator and had forseen a vision of touch screen smartphones in the near future, with such a deep, deep history making phones that they would have written their own OS. But no, they used Android, which happened to be written by a company who's CEO just happened to have a sneak peak at a finished product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams
These pictures are misleading. The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular. Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones. These pictures don't prove a thing.
The only thing that's actually misleading here is your use of a confused cause and effect fallacy as an argument. Smart phones gained popularity because of the iPhone, not the other way around. You also had people using high-end Nokias and BlackBerries, which were smartphones, and despite that, their designs did not survive or had to change after the iPhone came out, whereas the iPhone retains essentially the same design.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that the market would have shifted the way of the iPhone had the iPhone never actually existed (the LG Prada, released 4 months before the iPhone and which people claim Apple copied, never saw much success), but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that everyone switched to an iPhone-style after the iPhone came out.
Regarding to different independent rumors, Judge Colin Birss is member and Fan of FC Chelsea football club, which has the main sponsor SAMSUNG. So it is highly reliable that he is biased. Further there is not any chance for a final stay of this decision, because it infringes several aspects of european laws, especially because in other EU countries trials decided contrary. A publication f.e. in the international edition of newspapers would so contradict other european courts decisions. Probable that this judges career tends to its end now.
In addition, the pictures Samsung provided are mostly prototypes. In a sense, they make Samsung's argument weaker, not stronger. That photo essentially proves that Samsung was thinking "there are lots of other designs that we could have used and we even made prototypes of a lot of other designs that are significantly different than the iPhone, but after the iPhone came out, we chose the design that looked the closest to the iPhone." They essentially proved Apple's case.
Bingo. Good night. 'Nuff has been said by sensible people here. Of course AI Forums is popcorn entertainment for me, but I gotta go now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They essentially proved Apple's case.
Hrmmmm.....the subject is trial strategy. Here we have an opinion as to trial strategy by a person who has never been to law school, not even the worst law school in the entire country, not even attaining a rank of the bottom of the class. A guy who has never, not even once in his life, decided upon proper trial strategy.
And he's saying that the trial strategy is 180 degrees off - that it does not advance the case, but instead, that it proves the case brought by the other side.
And on the other side, we have the law firm of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, a Madison Avenue firm, with some of the best legal minds on the country. The lead attorney in the case is Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. Who is this guy who supposedly commits a gaffe so horrendous that he proves Apple's case for them? Who is he?
In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the Daily Journal as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in California. In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by The National Law Journal as one of 10 top lawyers in "Winning," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators. In January 2010, The American Lawyer awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by IP Law and Business. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was The American Lawyer's list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45. In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the California Daily Journal as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state. The Journal reported: "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene." In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by California Law Business as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old. Chambers USA has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property. Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source IP Law and Business, April 2003). Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 13-0.
Sorry, but given a choice between a distinguished, experienced trial lawyer, and some guy who has exactly ZERO credentials, ZERO experience, and ZERO credibility in the area of trial strategy, I'll pick the guy who was named by the National Law Journal as one of the top ten litigators in the country.
Sorry, JR, but your opinion is being discarded as uninformed.
Some of the shame I felt at being a Brit (after the Judge made that stupid order) is now lifting. Let's hope his peers in a higher court order Birss to apologise to Apple.
It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark.
I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.
It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark.
I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.
It certainly would be a terrible mistake to try to think for yourself.
Well, the real difference is between an informed opinion and a crank saying that an expert is 180 degrees off the mark.
I am reminded of those who never in their life studied calculus claiming that General Relativity is a crock. Only cranks do that.