Whether the judge rules left or right or in-between, it still doesn't fix Android; it still doesn't help the also-rans sell their bad tablets; it still won't save Nokia; it still won't prevent a blowout holiday quarter for Apple; it still won't help the industry's enormous laziness and lack of imagination; if there's an "Apple TV" in the works, it still won't save the old guard electronics makers; and it won't help Microsoft's Surface look like something more than an answer to a question no one asked.
The trolls here forget that Joe Average doesn't care how the judge rules. They just want the best gear money can buy, and they're willing to line up for it and pay big money for it. And it's most of it's sporting an Apple logo.
Apple never stole anyone's invention, innovation, gui or ui so they should win this slamdunk case.
:P
That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.
Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
You didn't say the same thing at all. Koh said nothing about the definitions of "public" and "open", she simply ruled that the actions of Samsung's legal team didn't require the kind of measures that Apple was calling for, according to this article.
Really? When Samsung has already received sanctions FOUR TIMES in this trial? Yep, they really schooled the judge.
You might want to learn to read.
The judge said that Samsung has shown good cause for their motion to discard Apple's proposed remedy. There's absolutely nothing in any of Koh's orders (or verbal statements, for that matter) that suggests that Samsung had good cause for releasing the information that they did.
You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.
You didn't say the same thing at all. Koh said nothing about the definitions of "public" and "open", she simply ruled that the actions of Samsung's legal team didn't require the kind of measures that Apple was calling for.
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!! So we don't get to win on the cheap?"
Your captive judge had no choice. There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.
....
Actually no. Only a complete idiot would think there were no grounds for sanctions.
There are probably no grounds for the sweeping sanctions Apple asked for, and no cause to just call the trial "over" and won by Apple, but there are definitely adequate grounds for sanctions. Whether she does it or not is pretty much up to her. Her decision will probably be based on evidence that we can't see/know however so to argue about it until the case is fully over and we have all the facts at hand that she is looking at now is almost certainly a waste of time.
Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
No, she didn't rule that. She didn't address Apple's motion at all. This argument is wrong. The quote in this article comes from Samsung's PROPOSED order. When you make a motion, you have to propose an order.
The judge has not ruled yet. You all are arguing about NOTHING.
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
Your quite clearly wrong about that. Read the article again. She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.
Actually no. Only a complete idiot would think there were no grounds for sanctions.
There are probably no grounds for the sweeping sanctions Apple asked for, and no cause to just call the trial "over" and won by Apple, but there are definitely adequate grounds for sanctions. Whether she does it or not is pretty much up to her. Her decision will probably be based on evidence that we can't see/know however so to argue about it until the case is fully over and we have all the facts at hand that she is looking at now is almost certainly a waste of time.
Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.
This, and my next immediate reply, will be my last contribution in this thread, but two things. First, didn't Koh say the entire trial would be open to the public record? So though we might not see everything right now, it'll all be shown. Second, the "papers submitted" consist of Quinn's declaration, Apple's request for sanctions, and Quinn's motion to strike.
Your quite clearly wrong about that. Read the article again. She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.
Ok. I'll grant maybe I'm reading too much into it. I presented my interpretation, you presented yours. I'll leave it at that.
Your quite clearly wrong about that. Read the article again. She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.
No. She has NOT ruled on Samsung's reaction. She has ruled on nothing.
no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards
My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..
I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers
That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.
You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.
This, and my next immediate reply, will be my last contribution in this thread, but two things. First, didn't Koh say the entire trial would be open to the public record? So though we might not see everything right now, it'll all be shown. Second, the "papers submitted" consist of Quinn's declaration, Apple's request for sanctions, and Quinn's motion to strike.
Exactly. And if Koh ruled on anything at all (which isn't clear), it was on the motion to strike - not Samsung's original misbehavior.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of an open trial. An open trial simply means that the public gets to see the testimony that is presented. It most certainly does NOT mean that either side can present anything they wish or violate the judge's orders. The court still has to abide by rules of evidence such as hearsay rules. The court also has the right to reject evidence which was not submitted in a timely manner or evidence which otherwise does not pass judicial muster.
Why can't i have an apple device and find some "cons" to it?
That's not what we're talking about. You know exactly what he means. Derogatory terms for the people invested in the company for which this website exists are frowned upon.
People need to wake up and realize they can't support this litigation nonsense...it will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements.
no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards
My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..
I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers
FYI, click on the icon that looks like a pencil in the lower left corner of your post window. This will allow you to edit your post.
Using the term iSheep in an Apple forum is not going to sit well with lots of the members. It's really old and, if you ask me, does not apply anymore. When half of Apple's customers are new to Apple, it kind of paints a bad picture of normal, everyday consumers who are simply freely exercising their right to purchase any product of their choosing.
FYI, click on the icon that looks like a pencil in the lower left corner of your post window. This will allow you to edit your post.
Using the term iSheep in an Apple forum is not going to sit well with lots of the members. It's really old and, if you ask me, does not apply anymore. When half of Apple's customers are new to Apple, it kind of paints a bad picture of normal, everyday consumers who are simply freely exercising their right to purchase any product of their choosing.
It's hard to take anyone's comments seriously when they use cliché, unimaginative and silly terms like iSheep. I also can't stand people point out that the word anal is contained in the word analyst. There are plenty of others. I much prefer someone at least try to be original even if their attempt at being humorous of clever falls short.
Comments
Whether the judge rules left or right or in-between, it still doesn't fix Android; it still doesn't help the also-rans sell their bad tablets; it still won't save Nokia; it still won't prevent a blowout holiday quarter for Apple; it still won't help the industry's enormous laziness and lack of imagination; if there's an "Apple TV" in the works, it still won't save the old guard electronics makers; and it won't help Microsoft's Surface look like something more than an answer to a question no one asked.
The trolls here forget that Joe Average doesn't care how the judge rules. They just want the best gear money can buy, and they're willing to line up for it and pay big money for it. And it's most of it's sporting an Apple logo.
Originally Posted by eric475
Apple never stole anyone's invention, innovation, gui or ui so they should win this slamdunk case.
:P
That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
You didn't say the same thing at all. Koh said nothing about the definitions of "public" and "open", she simply ruled that the actions of Samsung's legal team didn't require the kind of measures that Apple was calling for, according to this article.
You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farkus
"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!! So we don't get to win on the cheap?"
Your captive judge had no choice. There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.
....
Actually no. Only a complete idiot would think there were no grounds for sanctions.
There are probably no grounds for the sweeping sanctions Apple asked for, and no cause to just call the trial "over" and won by Apple, but there are definitely adequate grounds for sanctions. Whether she does it or not is pretty much up to her. Her decision will probably be based on evidence that we can't see/know however so to argue about it until the case is fully over and we have all the facts at hand that she is looking at now is almost certainly a waste of time.
Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
The trolls have awoken....
Yup, the little critters are out and about....
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
No, she didn't rule that. She didn't address Apple's motion at all. This argument is wrong. The quote in this article comes from Samsung's PROPOSED order. When you make a motion, you have to propose an order.
The judge has not ruled yet. You all are arguing about NOTHING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
Your quite clearly wrong about that. Read the article again. She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.
This, and my next immediate reply, will be my last contribution in this thread, but two things. First, didn't Koh say the entire trial would be open to the public record? So though we might not see everything right now, it'll all be shown. Second, the "papers submitted" consist of Quinn's declaration, Apple's request for sanctions, and Quinn's motion to strike.
Ok. I'll grant maybe I'm reading too much into it. I presented my interpretation, you presented yours. I'll leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Your quite clearly wrong about that. Read the article again. She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.
No. She has NOT ruled on Samsung's reaction. She has ruled on nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
Trolling a bit, newbie?
What is that, classic Android autocorrect?
no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards
My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..
I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.
Let's not go there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Don't say that around here, you will be scolded.
Why can't i have an apple device and find some "cons" to it?
both android and iOS have their pros or cons. Currently, for my needs, the iphone fits the bill.
People need to wake up and realize they can't support this litigation nonsense...it will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements.
We all know Apple wouldn't be where it is without looking to other companies for inspiration
Exactly. And if Koh ruled on anything at all (which isn't clear), it was on the motion to strike - not Samsung's original misbehavior.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of an open trial. An open trial simply means that the public gets to see the testimony that is presented. It most certainly does NOT mean that either side can present anything they wish or violate the judge's orders. The court still has to abide by rules of evidence such as hearsay rules. The court also has the right to reject evidence which was not submitted in a timely manner or evidence which otherwise does not pass judicial muster.
Originally Posted by jigjag69
Why can't i have an apple device and find some "cons" to it?
That's not what we're talking about. You know exactly what he means. Derogatory terms for the people invested in the company for which this website exists are frowned upon.
People need to wake up and realize they can't support this litigation nonsense...it will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements.
Again, not right at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69
no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards
My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..
I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers
FYI, click on the icon that looks like a pencil in the lower left corner of your post window. This will allow you to edit your post.
Using the term iSheep in an Apple forum is not going to sit well with lots of the members. It's really old and, if you ask me, does not apply anymore. When half of Apple's customers are new to Apple, it kind of paints a bad picture of normal, everyday consumers who are simply freely exercising their right to purchase any product of their choosing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69
Copying will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements.
Fixed.
Quote:
We all know Apple wouldn't be where it is without looking to other companies for inspiration
Which is a very different thing to brazenly copying.
It's hard to take anyone's comments seriously when they use cliché, unimaginative and silly terms like iSheep. I also can't stand people point out that the word anal is contained in the word analyst. There are plenty of others. I much prefer someone at least try to be original even if their attempt at being humorous of clever falls short.