Here's my question: why did no one notice that the report that magically showed up AFTER the suit was brought against Harvey and the firm was claimed to have never been written by the author, when she was confronted by Harvey? That plot hole has been driving me crazy for two weeks now.
Likely not a hole, but rather a dangler ... a harbinger of complexities and surprises to come
Care to provide us all with a list of the awesome innovations Samsung has 'prooduced' over the last decade or so?
We'll clear a little extra room in this thread for you to do so...
Or weren't you so serious?
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...
They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.
Aside from your abysmal grammar, this statement is incorrect. Samsung did not produce ALL the technology needed to make a smart phone. Samsung licenses technologies from others.
Regardless, I'm not sure why you would think that it's relevant. If I have invented a ton of technology, does that give me the right to steal the technology that I didn't invent? That's a bizarre legal theory. The issue is that Samsung is being accused of stealing Apple's IP. Whether or not Samsung has any IP of their own is totally irrelevant. Just as someone can be accused of stealing (and convicted if the evidence supports it) even if they already have billions of dollars in the bank.
The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design. It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like. And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.
And yet, the public who views these images, not to mention a certain group of people on these boards, will look at it and scream that Apple is the copier and therefore they are the guilty party here. Copy what exactly - it won't matter because they'll say Apple copied and all common sense and proof to the contrary won't matter.
That's the piece that I know Apple doesn't want to have happen, because there are just far too many stupid people out there that will believe whatever is presented to them - the popularity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are proof of this. I'm getting really tired of both Apple Insider and MacRumors because of the Apple bashing (being pitched as unbiased views that may just happen to go against those of the Apple fans visiting these sites) or rather it's not just Apple bashing, but people purposely provoking others. It does feel very Fox News like.
I think Samsung's lawyers are being very disingenuous when they state
The very fact that the evidence was disallowed makes it relevant to the fact that the jury had already been selected. Just because they have been instructed not to read any form of media related to the case doesn't mean they're going to walk around outside the court with their ears and eyes shut. It's almost inevitable that they will come across commentary or reporting on the case entirely incidentally and pick up snippets of what Samsung's lawyers have released. It will sow a seed in a jurors' minds that will not be addressed satisfactorily in court since the evidence will not be placed formally in front of them. What's more, by creating this complaint right at the very beginning, Samsung is clearly laying the groundwork for an appeal if the verdict doesn't go their way. It's not 'jury tampering' but it's the next best available thing and it's deeply cynical. In the UK, where I am, such a thing is called Contempt of Court and, certainly for criminal trials, would result in either a mis-trial or even jail time for the party/ies carrying out that contempt. Judge Koh is described as livid and I can well understand why. It clearly attempts to undermine the conduct of the trial from outside her court and in her place I would be hopping mad too.
Could Apple tell Samsung to stop being a major bitch and stop trying to cheat, and have a new set of jurors brought in? Personally, all the attempted cheating, would make me cut up every last contract I had with them, just to spite them.
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
The issue of whether Samsung created and manufactures components (and patents many of the same) isn't the issue being challenged here. Apple works with Samsung and buys a boat-load of parts from them. The issue is that, Apple goes to Samsung to buy parts for a new product. Samsung is privy to the design because they have build parts based upon design specs. Then for some reason, pure coincidence of course, Samsung changes their design for smartphones to look very much like the iPhone.
If you were in Apple's shoes, how would you feel? Having a vendor partner seemingly screw you after you spend billions of dollars with them is criminal - or at least that is what the courts will decide. Hopefully Apple can move away from Samsung for parts (other than for off the shelf pieces) so that we can see just how creative they are after Apple releases new products. Then we'll know if they're simply copying or actually thinking for themselves and taking chances on their own design ethic.
Oh man, this is just great. The Samsung F700 isn't an iPhone look-a-like at all. Instead it was copied from the HTC Kayser that just got onto the market. There was even talk on the Net about how the F700 was supposed to be *the* HTC Kayser-killer.
The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design. It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like. And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.
I agree. Apple didn't copy an existing Sony handset. Instead they were influenced by Sony designers and choices, and most certainly other handsets they had seen. That's not the same as copying. Samsung is just attempting to raise questions with the Sony-inspired claims, not really asserting answers in my opinion.
Now did Samsung stray too close to Apple's design patent with their early Galaxy models? I believe they did. Was it illegal? I'm guessing not, but based only on a gut feeling about how Apple's design patent will be viewed by the jury. Personally I think it's just a bit too vague and broad to hold up, and jurors probably won't be swayed by Apple's counsel attempts at putting more details into the patent than there actually are. In the end, I don't think Samsung will get of the hook entirely, likely being found to "borrow" too many elements of Apple's trade dress, at least in the past, but it ain't gonna be no multi-billion dollar damages.
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
So? You can build on Apple's innovation too. Nobody's stopping you from creating apps or accessories for Apple hardware...
Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.
Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose). By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple. It will certainly be grounds for appeal.
Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault. A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so. Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with. Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be. So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone. Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.
Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.
As a lawyer I can tell you this is a big deal procedurally. Regardless of whether the evidence should or should not have been excluded it was and the conduct of Samsung's lawyers is almost to be in contempt of court. It is like they are giving the judge the middle finger. So far the behavior of Samsung's attorneys will not enamor them at all to the judge and as much as a trial is about evidence and logic and the law, personalities still play a part. Piss off the judge too many times and they will definitely look with less favor at your arguments. It is human nature and is why a trial is usually the last thing companies want to engage in unless it is a last resort. I expect this to settle before it reaches a conclusion.
Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'.
Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.
Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'.
Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.
I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
B.t.w. we're getting off-topic
you've just made the case for apple. that was easy.
Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.
Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose). By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple. It will certainly be grounds for appeal.
Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault. A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so. Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with. Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be. So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone. Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.
Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.
If do not know about the details, why do you feel like you must share a completely misinformed opinion?
Here are a few facts that you just got wrong:
Samsung's evidence was excluded because Samsung missed the deadline to file it -- it is actually quite strange that a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence would forget to file key evidence in a case like this in a timely fashion.
While the information was public, there was no jury selected at the time -- now that a jury has been selected, Samsung's runs for the press can be regarded, in conjunction with their attempts to bring the F700 into discussion in the court, as attempts to taint the jury by making it impossible or extremely difficult for jurors to avoid outside information about the case.
Apple has already addressed your point regarding the likelihood of other phones like the iPhone existing in the market had they failed, and the fact that Samsung's phones (including the F700) changed radically after the iPhone only adds credit to Apple's claims that the designs were copied (Samsung was a provider of several components to the iPhone, including the displays, making it perfectly feasible for them to make a guess of what the iPhone would possibly look like and implement that as the F700).
Apple is after other vendors such as HTC and Motorola too, but they aren't as relevant as Samsung in the fight against Android (their main target) because of their much lower market share.
There is absolutely no unfairness here, there is nothing to appeal, Samsung's lawyers are simply playing dirty, and the gullible are falling on it. Fortunately the Judge is not.
I think… oh, that would screw up formatting on the articles proper, wouldn't it?
I was going to say that I think quotes (such as the included Samsung letter) on the forum should use the quote offset to distinguish them visually, but again, that'd probably screw up the articles themselves trying to account for that.
Also, it'd be nice to see the default quote box not only lose surrounding whitespace, but also the top line. We only use those boxes for one thing, so seeing "Quote:" every time is redundant. I've started manually removing them, and I like how it looks, myself.
_________Delineation_________
This is all totally off-topic. It is an attempt to derail the thread.
Samsung uses the trial to get depositions. The depositions are ruled inadmissable. Samsung then publishes them to taint the jury.
Clear lack of ethics here.
Plus, they are dishonest. The claim that the iPhone was inspired by Sony is nonsense and dishonest. The iPhone had that form in 2005. In 2006 there was an article describing (but not showing) a Sony phone, and the Apple designers mocked up a version of the iPhone based on that description to see if they were similar. What they mocked up looked like Apple's iPhone, not the actual phone that was being described (which came out much later and was butt ugly and nobody would confuse for an iphone.)
So, the whole basis for this claim that Apple copied sony is a total fabrication.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
This is the basis of the fandroids lie. Because Phones existed,in the past, therefore nothing Apple does could be original.
Hell, Marconi and Bell beat them to the punch, right! By many decades!
The revealing thing is, the need to claim that Apple copied others, is an admission that they know android is a counterifiet iOS, and thus they are trying to rationalize that theft by claiming Apple wasn't original.
So, actually, they're just admitting android is a stolen work.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
There is. Donna is in the hot seat.
Here's my question: why did no one notice that the report that magically showed up AFTER the suit was brought against Harvey and the firm was claimed to have never been written by the author, when she was confronted by Harvey? That plot hole has been driving me crazy for two weeks now.
Likely not a hole, but rather a dangler ... a harbinger of complexities and surprises to come
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Care to provide us all with a list of the awesome innovations Samsung has 'prooduced' over the last decade or so?
We'll clear a little extra room in this thread for you to do so...
Or weren't you so serious?
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
Aside from your abysmal grammar, this statement is incorrect. Samsung did not produce ALL the technology needed to make a smart phone. Samsung licenses technologies from others.
Regardless, I'm not sure why you would think that it's relevant. If I have invented a ton of technology, does that give me the right to steal the technology that I didn't invent? That's a bizarre legal theory. The issue is that Samsung is being accused of stealing Apple's IP. Whether or not Samsung has any IP of their own is totally irrelevant. Just as someone can be accused of stealing (and convicted if the evidence supports it) even if they already have billions of dollars in the bank.
The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design. It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like. And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.
And yet, the public who views these images, not to mention a certain group of people on these boards, will look at it and scream that Apple is the copier and therefore they are the guilty party here. Copy what exactly - it won't matter because they'll say Apple copied and all common sense and proof to the contrary won't matter.
That's the piece that I know Apple doesn't want to have happen, because there are just far too many stupid people out there that will believe whatever is presented to them - the popularity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are proof of this. I'm getting really tired of both Apple Insider and MacRumors because of the Apple bashing (being pitched as unbiased views that may just happen to go against those of the Apple fans visiting these sites) or rather it's not just Apple bashing, but people purposely provoking others. It does feel very Fox News like.
Could Apple tell Samsung to stop being a major bitch and stop trying to cheat, and have a new set of jurors brought in? Personally, all the attempted cheating, would make me cut up every last contract I had with them, just to spite them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
The issue of whether Samsung created and manufactures components (and patents many of the same) isn't the issue being challenged here. Apple works with Samsung and buys a boat-load of parts from them. The issue is that, Apple goes to Samsung to buy parts for a new product. Samsung is privy to the design because they have build parts based upon design specs. Then for some reason, pure coincidence of course, Samsung changes their design for smartphones to look very much like the iPhone.
If you were in Apple's shoes, how would you feel? Having a vendor partner seemingly screw you after you spend billions of dollars with them is criminal - or at least that is what the courts will decide. Hopefully Apple can move away from Samsung for parts (other than for off the shelf pieces) so that we can see just how creative they are after Apple releases new products. Then we'll know if they're simply copying or actually thinking for themselves and taking chances on their own design ethic.
Oh man, this is just great. The Samsung F700 isn't an iPhone look-a-like at all. Instead it was copied from the HTC Kayser that just got onto the market. There was even talk on the Net about how the F700 was supposed to be *the* HTC Kayser-killer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design. It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like. And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.
I agree. Apple didn't copy an existing Sony handset. Instead they were influenced by Sony designers and choices, and most certainly other handsets they had seen. That's not the same as copying. Samsung is just attempting to raise questions with the Sony-inspired claims, not really asserting answers in my opinion.
Now did Samsung stray too close to Apple's design patent with their early Galaxy models? I believe they did. Was it illegal? I'm guessing not, but based only on a gut feeling about how Apple's design patent will be viewed by the jury. Personally I think it's just a bit too vague and broad to hold up, and jurors probably won't be swayed by Apple's counsel attempts at putting more details into the patent than there actually are. In the end, I don't think Samsung will get of the hook entirely, likely being found to "borrow" too many elements of Apple's trade dress, at least in the past, but it ain't gonna be no multi-billion dollar damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.
Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.
So? You can build on Apple's innovation too. Nobody's stopping you from creating apps or accessories for Apple hardware...
Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.
Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose). By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple. It will certainly be grounds for appeal.
Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault. A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so. Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with. Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be. So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone. Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.
Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.
As a lawyer I can tell you this is a big deal procedurally. Regardless of whether the evidence should or should not have been excluded it was and the conduct of Samsung's lawyers is almost to be in contempt of court. It is like they are giving the judge the middle finger. So far the behavior of Samsung's attorneys will not enamor them at all to the judge and as much as a trial is about evidence and logic and the law, personalities still play a part. Piss off the judge too many times and they will definitely look with less favor at your arguments. It is human nature and is why a trial is usually the last thing companies want to engage in unless it is a last resort. I expect this to settle before it reaches a conclusion.
Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'.
Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter
Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'.
Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.
I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
B.t.w. we're getting off-topic
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
B.t.w. we're getting off-topic
you've just made the case for apple. that was easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.
Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose). By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple. It will certainly be grounds for appeal.
Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault. A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so. Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with. Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be. So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone. Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.
Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.
If do not know about the details, why do you feel like you must share a completely misinformed opinion?
Here are a few facts that you just got wrong:
Samsung's evidence was excluded because Samsung missed the deadline to file it -- it is actually quite strange that a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence would forget to file key evidence in a case like this in a timely fashion.
While the information was public, there was no jury selected at the time -- now that a jury has been selected, Samsung's runs for the press can be regarded, in conjunction with their attempts to bring the F700 into discussion in the court, as attempts to taint the jury by making it impossible or extremely difficult for jurors to avoid outside information about the case.
Apple has already addressed your point regarding the likelihood of other phones like the iPhone existing in the market had they failed, and the fact that Samsung's phones (including the F700) changed radically after the iPhone only adds credit to Apple's claims that the designs were copied (Samsung was a provider of several components to the iPhone, including the displays, making it perfectly feasible for them to make a guess of what the iPhone would possibly look like and implement that as the F700).
Apple is after other vendors such as HTC and Motorola too, but they aren't as relevant as Samsung in the fight against Android (their main target) because of their much lower market share.
There is absolutely no unfairness here, there is nothing to appeal, Samsung's lawyers are simply playing dirty, and the gullible are falling on it. Fortunately the Judge is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I think… oh, that would screw up formatting on the articles proper, wouldn't it?
I was going to say that I think quotes (such as the included Samsung letter) on the forum should use the quote offset to distinguish them visually, but again, that'd probably screw up the articles themselves trying to account for that.
Also, it'd be nice to see the default quote box not only lose surrounding whitespace, but also the top line. We only use those boxes for one thing, so seeing "Quote:" every time is redundant. I've started manually removing them, and I like how it looks, myself.
_________Delineation_________
This is all totally off-topic. It is an attempt to derail the thread.
Samsung uses the trial to get depositions. The depositions are ruled inadmissable. Samsung then publishes them to taint the jury.
Clear lack of ethics here.
Plus, they are dishonest. The claim that the iPhone was inspired by Sony is nonsense and dishonest. The iPhone had that form in 2005. In 2006 there was an article describing (but not showing) a Sony phone, and the Apple designers mocked up a version of the iPhone based on that description to see if they were similar. What they mocked up looked like Apple's iPhone, not the actual phone that was being described (which came out much later and was butt ugly and nobody would confuse for an iphone.)
So, the whole basis for this claim that Apple copied sony is a total fabrication.
Quote:
Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.
This is the basis of the fandroids lie. Because Phones existed,in the past, therefore nothing Apple does could be original.
Hell, Marconi and Bell beat them to the punch, right! By many decades!
The revealing thing is, the need to claim that Apple copied others, is an admission that they know android is a counterifiet iOS, and thus they are trying to rationalize that theft by claiming Apple wasn't original.
So, actually, they're just admitting android is a stolen work.
Originally Posted by mausz
…the samsung version is a much improved version…
You've obviously never opened them.
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
This is all totally off-topic. It is an attempt to derail the thread.
Yep.