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 agree that Apple is paying a price in this case. We have already learned recently that AT&T and Verizon deliberately instruct their staff to not only under-sell the iPhone but to in fact lie about its capabilities. Now they will have more fuel to create smoke.
Notwithstanding this, I still support what Apple is doing. If nothing else, they are sticking to the ethos that sales numbers and profits are not everything; principles matter more.
You're right, but as the case was made regarding the design and not the technical insides, my opinion still stands. From a design and usability point of view the Samsung version is the better version for me.
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.
The question is why the lawyer Quinn did this. I surmise it has to do with covering his butt. His case is not strong and therefore he is creating smoke and maybe even cause for a mistrial.
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
They don't have to be detail-for-detail identical copies to be "copies." Of all the possible configurations for wall plugs and dock connectors they have to go with the same proportions and overall shape of Apple's? And that's not deliberate? Apple worked hard to get consumers to develop trust in their products and product quality, to knock off Apple's products is implying "hey, we're just as good as what you've learned to expect from Apple." That may well be the case but they shouldn't be allowed to take shortcuts that undermine Apple's protectable interests.
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.
Actually, its not that phones existed. its that phones with rectangular shapes existed. rounded corners existed. Touchscreens existed. App icons on a screen existed.
And it goes back to the same point that has been said again and again.
If the case is that Samsung copied apple by releasing a rectangular phone with rounded edges, then this case will set a precedent for every TV manufacturer, radio manufacturer, door manufacturer, speaker manufacturer, turntable manufacturer, etc.
There are places where you can express differentiation in a design, but the face of a device has very limited of that since its just a screen (as existed before the iphone. lets not pretend the iphone was first phone to be dominated on the front by a screen and minimal buttons, of which samsung has three and iphone 1, anyway). Now the back of the device leaves plenty of room. And true enough, the galaxy tab and the ipad differ quite a bit in the back, as shown in the UK trial. And even in the front of the device there is a bigger screen with a diff aspect ratio and no button anywhere on the face, unlike the ipad.
If Apple win this case, expect it to be used a precedent when Apple brings out their TV, cause I will LOVE to see them release a TV that isn't rectangular with minimal buttons on the front, 16:9 aspect ratio, thin profile......you know, everything a TV is BY DEFINITION.
What this case will basically decide is if products, even in the SAME CATEGORY, like a TV or a refrigerator, is allowed to look anything alike regardless of if the parts that look alike directly define what the product is.
A fridge has doors at the front that open up to what lies inside, an oven has a door on the front with a handle that opens up, a speaker has a cone with a mesh on the front of it, a TV has a screen on the front, and a tablet (and when i say tablet i mean even before the ipad) has a screen on the front which will use some standard ratio and resolution, Hence why you would not see a circular tablet or TV screen.
That's my take on the trade dress stuff. As for the utility patents, thats a diff matter. If there is no prior art and it is not obvious as described by patent law, then Apple is right to want justice. That part of it is pretty black and white.
People tend to forget that Apple isn't just about external aesthetics -- the stuff you hold and see. Apple designs its own motherboards, daughterboards, chips, batteries and and other components. Sure, Apple takes existing technology (e.g. batteries) and then remoulds it until it becomes unique. Take the Magic Mouse -- I noticed that both batteries face the same direction, positive one end & negative contacts the other (+/-) (+/-). Everyone else has their batteries in the "69" orientation (+/-) (-/+) because they are easier to wire up that way around -- Apple's way just makes it easier because you know that batteries all go one way.
Steve Jobs was obsessed about clean design, and said something to the effect that the inside should be beautiful as the outside. Open up any Apple product and you'll understand. Also, check out the iMac with only two visible screws, and Jobs hated those as well.
In order to achieve all this, Apple has to enter into dialogue with various component manufacturers, and helps to re-design components, sometimes even help with designing the manufacturing equipment (it's not all manual labour involved). Intel wasn't really keen on miniaturing CPUs for the Macbook Air until Apple threatened to cross the road to AMD, and actually sent teams of engineers to work at Intel to design Intel components for the Macbook Air.
Just like Apple's eco-system (device, software, store, etc), Apple is about the whole product not just aesthetics.
The Judge was clearly not happy about Samsung's actions and I think Apple should go after this. This was totally illegal just like everything else Samsung does. And there is evidence that Samsung repeatedly does illegal things like destroying evidence as well. I don't know how Samsung can defend against something that the Judge clearly told them not to do and yet they do it anyways. There is no excuse.
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. ... 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. ...
I think "disingenuous" doesn't adequately describe what they are doing. The phrase, "brazen lie" comes closer. In fact, this "evidence" was disallowed because it wasn't evidence. The release is propaganda, the "evidence" itself is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and twisting of the truth. (Apparently there is something about Android that makes people want to do that. We see it here on this forum from certain posters.) Samsung's lawyers should be disbarred for concocting this lie and presenting it to the court as evidence. This isn't vigorous advocacy for one's client, it's perjury.
A contempt charge is a possibility, but I think Samsung's lawyers are hoping for a mistrial by tainting the jury. Almost every ruling has gone against them, so they don't really have a chance at coming out of this with a win. Their only hope, then, would be to get a mistrial, a different judge on the retrial, and hope they can get a different result in the pretrial arguments, as well as dragging things out as long as possible.
Clearly, Samsung is a dishonest company, and it looks like they've found themselves some dishonest attorneys (and, no, I don't believe that lawyers as a group are dishonest, quite the contrary), and gotten into bed with the product of an equally dishonest company, Google. Frankly, I don't think it would be out of line for the Feds to look into the whole Android thing under the RICO Act: An organized conspiracy to steal Apple's IP and illegally take over markets
Actually, its not that phones existed. its that phones with rectangular shapes existed. rounded corners existed. Touchscreens existed. App icons on a screen existed.
And it goes back to the same point that has been said again and again.
If the case is that Samsung copied apple by releasing a rectangular phone with rounded edges, then this case will set a precedent for every TV manufacturer, radio manufacturer, door manufacturer, speaker manufacturer, turntable manufacturer, etc.
...
Please, enough with the lie that this is about "rectangles". It isn't. Having been said, "again and again," doesn't make it any less of a lie.
People tend to forget that Apple isn't just about external aesthetics -- the stuff you hold and see. Apple designs its own motherboards, daughterboards, chips, batteries and and other components. Sure, Apple takes existing technology (e.g. batteries) and then remoulds it until it becomes unique. Take the Magic Mouse -- I noticed that both batteries face the same direction, positive one end & negative contacts the other (+/-) (+/-). Everyone else has their batteries in the "69" orientation (+/-) (-/+) because they are easier to wire up that way around -- Apple's way just makes it easier because you know that batteries all go one way.
Steve Jobs was obsessed about clean design, and said something to the effect that the inside should be beautiful as the outside. Open up any Apple product and you'll understand. Also, check out the iMac with only two visible screws, and Jobs hated those as well.
In order to achieve all this, Apple has to enter into dialogue with various component manufacturers, and helps to re-design components, sometimes even help with designing the manufacturing equipment (it's not all manual labour involved). Intel wasn't really keen on miniaturing CPUs for the Macbook Air until Apple threatened to cross the road to AMD, and actually sent teams of engineers to work at Intel to design Intel components for the Macbook Air.
Just like Apple's eco-system (device, software, store, etc), Apple is about the whole product not just aesthetics.
Huh? Dude, even my first SHAVER ( a conair from 95, i remember it well )has batteries that face the same way. This has been around FOREVER.
Also, many PC's also have crazy attention to detail. Have a look around the Falcon Northwest offerings, or those from maingear and digital storm. See the case etching, the aeronautical paint, the extremely tidy insides with no stray wires, the carefully engineered liquid systems. Those guys are very pedantic with their best stuff.
The problem is, all of that comes at a cost, so you will not see Dell make a 300 dollar PC with anywhere near that care, of course. Only people with money can afford that.
I agree that Apple does have attention to detail, but they were not the first, and certainly aren't the only ones to pay attention to the small details.
So I really wouldn't associate attention to detail with Apple. At the end of the day, they make mass market stuff that's made in china. You want attention to detail, go to boutique PC makers and see some of their offerings. Especially their "made-to-order' stuff. You will be AMAZED if you like that kind of crazy pedantic stuff. Sure, it will cost you an arm and three legs, but you get what you pay for.
I agree that Apple does have attention to detail, but they were not the first, and certainly aren't the only ones to pay attention to the small details.
So I really wouldn't associate attention to detail with Apple. ...
It seems you contradict yourself.
And, what does whether they were the first or only ones to pay attention to detail have to do with the statement made? This seems to be a constant refrain from the fandroids and Apple haters: Apple wasn't the first to _________.
So what? You don't have to be the first to do absolutely anything and everything to do it better and in a more innovative way than anyone else. Not being first, in the context you use it, is entirely irrelevant. Get an argument instead of mindlessly repeating talking points: not first, rectangles, ...
The question is why the lawyer Quinn did this. I surmise it has to do with covering his butt. His case is not strong and therefore he is creating smoke and maybe even cause for a mistrial.
A lawyer is legally bound to defend their client to the full extent of the law. I am assuming that he feels that this is the best approach to defending Samsung's interests and perhaps it would give him grounds for an appeal later on but I am not quite sure why he would intetionally antagonize the judge in this way. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I think "disingenuous" doesn't adequately describe what they are doing. The phrase, "brazen lie" comes closer. In fact, this "evidence" was disallowed because it wasn't evidence. The release is propaganda, the "evidence" itself is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and twisting of the truth. (Apparently there is something about Android that makes people want to do that. We see it here on this forum from certain posters.) Samsung's lawyers should be disbarred for concocting this lie and presenting it to the court as evidence. This isn't vigorous advocacy for one's client, it's perjury.
A contempt charge is a possibility, but I think Samsung's lawyers are hoping for a mistrial by tainting the jury. Almost every ruling has gone against them, so they don't really have a chance at coming out of this with a win. Their only hope, then, would be to get a mistrial, a different judge on the retrial, and hope they can get a different result in the pretrial arguments, as well as dragging things out as long as possible.
Clearly, Samsung is a dishonest company, and it looks like they've found themselves some dishonest attorneys (and, no, I don't believe that lawyers as a group are dishonest, quite the contrary), and gotten into bed with the product of an equally dishonest company, Google. Frankly, I don't think it would be out of line for the Feds to look into the whole Android thing under the RICO Act: An organized conspiracy to steal Apple's IP and illegally take over markets
I wouldn't call Samsung's lawyer dishonest and I certainly wouldn't classify a company as dishonest. People interpret the law in a lot of different ways. Like I said in a previous response as a lawyer we are legally and professionally bound to defend our client's to the fullest extent of the law. Intentionally trying to taint the jury pool would be akin to professional suicide so I doubt he is trying to do that. In his mind he is not releasing inadmissable evidence. In his mind he is clarifying to the press an issue that he claims he has been requested to clarify. There is no doubt he is playing a dangerous game but this could be part of an overarching strategy we are not aware of. I don't think it is smart what he is doing but it could be he is arguing style over substance because he has no choice. Hard to say but I look forward to the judge's response to his submission as to his reasoning behind this move.
A lawyer is legally bound to defend their client to the full extent of the law. I am assuming that he feels that this is the best approach to defending Samsung's interests and perhaps it would give him grounds for an appeal later on but I am not quite sure why he would intetionally antagonize the judge in this way. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
He's also legally bound not to lie, or ask others to lie, while doing so, and to follow the orders of the court.
For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...
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.
Wrong.
You're getting confused between creation and manufacturing.
Feel free to show us Samsung's 'Retina products' that were released at the same time as the iPhone 4 or even the iPad 3.
Apple's products were built on all the innovations before them?
No shit, Sherlock. You just described every piece of technology (not to mention innumerable other categories) ever created.
... hence the problem. And no, that doesn't mean only Google is culpable. Samsung is responsible for including stolen IP in their products. It isn't about the "rounded rectangle".
He's also legally bound not to lie, or ask others to lie, while doing so, and to follow the orders of the court.
Not sure where he is intentionally lying, or inducing others to lie and I already explained what his interpretation of releasing the inadmissable evidence was (based on his written submission to the judge). Unless you are on the Samsung legal team make sure you can substantiate your claims. The judge will censor him or rule him in contempt if there is any evidence of that but I doubt he got to the position he is in by acting in such a patently illegal way.
Comments
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.
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 agree that Apple is paying a price in this case. We have already learned recently that AT&T and Verizon deliberately instruct their staff to not only under-sell the iPhone but to in fact lie about its capabilities. Now they will have more fuel to create smoke.
Notwithstanding this, I still support what Apple is doing. If nothing else, they are sticking to the ethos that sales numbers and profits are not everything; principles matter more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You've obviously never opened them.
You're right, but as the case was made regarding the design and not the technical insides, my opinion still stands. From a design and usability point of view the Samsung version is the better version for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justmark
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.
The question is why the lawyer Quinn did this. I surmise it has to do with covering his butt. His case is not strong and therefore he is creating smoke and maybe even cause for a mistrial.
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
They don't have to be detail-for-detail identical copies to be "copies." Of all the possible configurations for wall plugs and dock connectors they have to go with the same proportions and overall shape of Apple's? And that's not deliberate? Apple worked hard to get consumers to develop trust in their products and product quality, to knock off Apple's products is implying "hey, we're just as good as what you've learned to expect from Apple." That may well be the case but they shouldn't be allowed to take shortcuts that undermine Apple's protectable interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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.
Actually, its not that phones existed. its that phones with rectangular shapes existed. rounded corners existed. Touchscreens existed. App icons on a screen existed.
And it goes back to the same point that has been said again and again.
If the case is that Samsung copied apple by releasing a rectangular phone with rounded edges, then this case will set a precedent for every TV manufacturer, radio manufacturer, door manufacturer, speaker manufacturer, turntable manufacturer, etc.
There are places where you can express differentiation in a design, but the face of a device has very limited of that since its just a screen (as existed before the iphone. lets not pretend the iphone was first phone to be dominated on the front by a screen and minimal buttons, of which samsung has three and iphone 1, anyway). Now the back of the device leaves plenty of room. And true enough, the galaxy tab and the ipad differ quite a bit in the back, as shown in the UK trial. And even in the front of the device there is a bigger screen with a diff aspect ratio and no button anywhere on the face, unlike the ipad.
If Apple win this case, expect it to be used a precedent when Apple brings out their TV, cause I will LOVE to see them release a TV that isn't rectangular with minimal buttons on the front, 16:9 aspect ratio, thin profile......you know, everything a TV is BY DEFINITION.
What this case will basically decide is if products, even in the SAME CATEGORY, like a TV or a refrigerator, is allowed to look anything alike regardless of if the parts that look alike directly define what the product is.
A fridge has doors at the front that open up to what lies inside, an oven has a door on the front with a handle that opens up, a speaker has a cone with a mesh on the front of it, a TV has a screen on the front, and a tablet (and when i say tablet i mean even before the ipad) has a screen on the front which will use some standard ratio and resolution, Hence why you would not see a circular tablet or TV screen.
That's my take on the trade dress stuff. As for the utility patents, thats a diff matter. If there is no prior art and it is not obvious as described by patent law, then Apple is right to want justice. That part of it is pretty black and white.
People tend to forget that Apple isn't just about external aesthetics -- the stuff you hold and see. Apple designs its own motherboards, daughterboards, chips, batteries and and other components. Sure, Apple takes existing technology (e.g. batteries) and then remoulds it until it becomes unique. Take the Magic Mouse -- I noticed that both batteries face the same direction, positive one end & negative contacts the other (+/-) (+/-). Everyone else has their batteries in the "69" orientation (+/-) (-/+) because they are easier to wire up that way around -- Apple's way just makes it easier because you know that batteries all go one way.
Steve Jobs was obsessed about clean design, and said something to the effect that the inside should be beautiful as the outside. Open up any Apple product and you'll understand. Also, check out the iMac with only two visible screws, and Jobs hated those as well.
In order to achieve all this, Apple has to enter into dialogue with various component manufacturers, and helps to re-design components, sometimes even help with designing the manufacturing equipment (it's not all manual labour involved). Intel wasn't really keen on miniaturing CPUs for the Macbook Air until Apple threatened to cross the road to AMD, and actually sent teams of engineers to work at Intel to design Intel components for the Macbook Air.
Just like Apple's eco-system (device, software, store, etc), Apple is about the whole product not just aesthetics.
The Judge was clearly not happy about Samsung's actions and I think Apple should go after this. This was totally illegal just like everything else Samsung does. And there is evidence that Samsung repeatedly does illegal things like destroying evidence as well. I don't know how Samsung can defend against something that the Judge clearly told them not to do and yet they do it anyways. There is no excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter
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. ... 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. ...
I think "disingenuous" doesn't adequately describe what they are doing. The phrase, "brazen lie" comes closer. In fact, this "evidence" was disallowed because it wasn't evidence. The release is propaganda, the "evidence" itself is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and twisting of the truth. (Apparently there is something about Android that makes people want to do that. We see it here on this forum from certain posters.) Samsung's lawyers should be disbarred for concocting this lie and presenting it to the court as evidence. This isn't vigorous advocacy for one's client, it's perjury.
A contempt charge is a possibility, but I think Samsung's lawyers are hoping for a mistrial by tainting the jury. Almost every ruling has gone against them, so they don't really have a chance at coming out of this with a win. Their only hope, then, would be to get a mistrial, a different judge on the retrial, and hope they can get a different result in the pretrial arguments, as well as dragging things out as long as possible.
Clearly, Samsung is a dishonest company, and it looks like they've found themselves some dishonest attorneys (and, no, I don't believe that lawyers as a group are dishonest, quite the contrary), and gotten into bed with the product of an equally dishonest company, Google. Frankly, I don't think it would be out of line for the Feds to look into the whole Android thing under the RICO Act: An organized conspiracy to steal Apple's IP and illegally take over markets
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Actually, its not that phones existed. its that phones with rectangular shapes existed. rounded corners existed. Touchscreens existed. App icons on a screen existed.
And it goes back to the same point that has been said again and again.
...If the case is that Samsung copied apple by releasing a rectangular phone with rounded edges, then this case will set a precedent for every TV manufacturer, radio manufacturer, door manufacturer, speaker manufacturer, turntable manufacturer, etc.
Please, enough with the lie that this is about "rectangles". It isn't. Having been said, "again and again," doesn't make it any less of a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
People tend to forget that Apple isn't just about external aesthetics -- the stuff you hold and see. Apple designs its own motherboards, daughterboards, chips, batteries and and other components. Sure, Apple takes existing technology (e.g. batteries) and then remoulds it until it becomes unique. Take the Magic Mouse -- I noticed that both batteries face the same direction, positive one end & negative contacts the other (+/-) (+/-). Everyone else has their batteries in the "69" orientation (+/-) (-/+) because they are easier to wire up that way around -- Apple's way just makes it easier because you know that batteries all go one way.
Steve Jobs was obsessed about clean design, and said something to the effect that the inside should be beautiful as the outside. Open up any Apple product and you'll understand. Also, check out the iMac with only two visible screws, and Jobs hated those as well.
In order to achieve all this, Apple has to enter into dialogue with various component manufacturers, and helps to re-design components, sometimes even help with designing the manufacturing equipment (it's not all manual labour involved). Intel wasn't really keen on miniaturing CPUs for the Macbook Air until Apple threatened to cross the road to AMD, and actually sent teams of engineers to work at Intel to design Intel components for the Macbook Air.
Just like Apple's eco-system (device, software, store, etc), Apple is about the whole product not just aesthetics.
Huh? Dude, even my first SHAVER ( a conair from 95, i remember it well
Also, many PC's also have crazy attention to detail. Have a look around the Falcon Northwest offerings, or those from maingear and digital storm. See the case etching, the aeronautical paint, the extremely tidy insides with no stray wires, the carefully engineered liquid systems. Those guys are very pedantic with their best stuff.
The problem is, all of that comes at a cost, so you will not see Dell make a 300 dollar PC with anywhere near that care, of course. Only people with money can afford that.
I agree that Apple does have attention to detail, but they were not the first, and certainly aren't the only ones to pay attention to the small details.
So I really wouldn't associate attention to detail with Apple. At the end of the day, they make mass market stuff that's made in china. You want attention to detail, go to boutique PC makers and see some of their offerings. Especially their "made-to-order' stuff. You will be AMAZED if you like that kind of crazy pedantic stuff. Sure, it will cost you an arm and three legs, but you get what you pay for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
...
I agree that Apple does have attention to detail, but they were not the first, and certainly aren't the only ones to pay attention to the small details.
So I really wouldn't associate attention to detail with Apple. ...
It seems you contradict yourself.
And, what does whether they were the first or only ones to pay attention to detail have to do with the statement made? This seems to be a constant refrain from the fandroids and Apple haters: Apple wasn't the first to _________.
So what? You don't have to be the first to do absolutely anything and everything to do it better and in a more innovative way than anyone else. Not being first, in the context you use it, is entirely irrelevant. Get an argument instead of mindlessly repeating talking points: not first, rectangles, ...
Since we're discussing patent litigation, and although trolling is an entirely different topic, here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/02/157743897/can-you-get-a-patent-on-being-a-patent-troll
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
The question is why the lawyer Quinn did this. I surmise it has to do with covering his butt. His case is not strong and therefore he is creating smoke and maybe even cause for a mistrial.
A lawyer is legally bound to defend their client to the full extent of the law. I am assuming that he feels that this is the best approach to defending Samsung's interests and perhaps it would give him grounds for an appeal later on but I am not quite sure why he would intetionally antagonize the judge in this way. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I think "disingenuous" doesn't adequately describe what they are doing. The phrase, "brazen lie" comes closer. In fact, this "evidence" was disallowed because it wasn't evidence. The release is propaganda, the "evidence" itself is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and twisting of the truth. (Apparently there is something about Android that makes people want to do that. We see it here on this forum from certain posters.) Samsung's lawyers should be disbarred for concocting this lie and presenting it to the court as evidence. This isn't vigorous advocacy for one's client, it's perjury.
A contempt charge is a possibility, but I think Samsung's lawyers are hoping for a mistrial by tainting the jury. Almost every ruling has gone against them, so they don't really have a chance at coming out of this with a win. Their only hope, then, would be to get a mistrial, a different judge on the retrial, and hope they can get a different result in the pretrial arguments, as well as dragging things out as long as possible.
Clearly, Samsung is a dishonest company, and it looks like they've found themselves some dishonest attorneys (and, no, I don't believe that lawyers as a group are dishonest, quite the contrary), and gotten into bed with the product of an equally dishonest company, Google. Frankly, I don't think it would be out of line for the Feds to look into the whole Android thing under the RICO Act: An organized conspiracy to steal Apple's IP and illegally take over markets
I wouldn't call Samsung's lawyer dishonest and I certainly wouldn't classify a company as dishonest. People interpret the law in a lot of different ways. Like I said in a previous response as a lawyer we are legally and professionally bound to defend our client's to the fullest extent of the law. Intentionally trying to taint the jury pool would be akin to professional suicide so I doubt he is trying to do that. In his mind he is not releasing inadmissable evidence. In his mind he is clarifying to the press an issue that he claims he has been requested to clarify. There is no doubt he is playing a dangerous game but this could be part of an overarching strategy we are not aware of. I don't think it is smart what he is doing but it could be he is arguing style over substance because he has no choice. Hard to say but I look forward to the judge's response to his submission as to his reasoning behind this move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justmark
A lawyer is legally bound to defend their client to the full extent of the law. I am assuming that he feels that this is the best approach to defending Samsung's interests and perhaps it would give him grounds for an appeal later on but I am not quite sure why he would intetionally antagonize the judge in this way. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
He's also legally bound not to lie, or ask others to lie, while doing so, and to follow the orders of the court.
Wrong.
You're getting confused between creation and manufacturing.
Feel free to show us Samsung's 'Retina products' that were released at the same time as the iPhone 4 or even the iPad 3.
Apple's products were built on all the innovations before them?
No shit, Sherlock. You just described every piece of technology (not to mention innumerable other categories) ever created.
Originally Posted by GTR
No shit, Sherlock. You just described every piece of technology (not to mention innumerable other categories) ever created.
Great, now you've accepted the, "Apple can't sue for it because everyone does it" argument.
LOL.
Not necessarily.
Elvis Presley never invented music, but you can't ignore his contributions to the music industry.
And just try copying his stuff a little too well and see where that gets you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
... and glued it all with android.
... hence the problem. And no, that doesn't mean only Google is culpable. Samsung is responsible for including stolen IP in their products. It isn't about the "rounded rectangle".
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
He's also legally bound not to lie, or ask others to lie, while doing so, and to follow the orders of the court.
Not sure where he is intentionally lying, or inducing others to lie and I already explained what his interpretation of releasing the inadmissable evidence was (based on his written submission to the judge). Unless you are on the Samsung legal team make sure you can substantiate your claims. The judge will censor him or rule him in contempt if there is any evidence of that but I doubt he got to the position he is in by acting in such a patently illegal way.