That was taken from a user survey from Apple, not one by Samsung. On redirect Schiller got a chance to explain the methodology of the survey:
11:47 AM Schiller is being given a chance to explain the chart that had just one percent of customers listing design as important to their decision. He says that in this instance people were asked what element, other than price, would be the most important.
Yeah, saw that. They're taking a very specific set of criteria, coming up with 1% and then trying to insinuate to the jury that only 1% of the people care about design.
People buy things based on looks. Sure it's shallow, but everyone does it. For Samsung to say only 1% of people find looks/design important is beyond stupid.
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
It's not confusing at all, just different questions.
For example, let's say you asked people "Besides price, what is the next most important thing to you?"
Most would probably pick things like features, carrier, capacity, size, screen quality and so on. In this case 1% picked design at the most important after price.
However, if you asked people what are the top 3 things you look for, you might get "design" showing up in most of their lists. It's just a different way of looking at the data.
Samsung tried to make it appear only 1% care about design (or another way to see it, 99% don't care), which is completely wrong. Just look at all the arguments online about the looks of the iPhone or whether the new GSIII is ugly or not. Looks (design) matters to people. A lot more than 1%.
It's not confusing at all, just different questions.
For example, let's say you asked people "Besides price, what is the next most important thing to you?"
Most would probably pick things like features, carrier, capacity, size, screen quality and so on. In this case 1% picked design at the most important after price.
However, if you asked people what are the top 3 things you look for, you might get "design" showing up in most of their lists. It's just a different way of looking at the data.
Samsung tried to make it appear only 1% care about design (or another way to see it, 99% don't care), which is completely wrong. Just look at all the arguments online about the looks of the iPhone or whether the new GSIII is ugly or not. Looks (design) matters to people. A lot more than 1%.
I agree that the 1% seems small, but the way you phrased bothe questions doesn't seem like it would generate a different response.
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
No. His point was that the second survey quoted asked a different question from the first and that the Samsung lawyer purposely left out the question to imply that the results were at odds with each other.
84% said that design was important or very important to them on the first survey.
1% said that design was the next thing they would think of after price when choosing a phone on the second survey.
No. His point was that the second survey quoted asked a different question from the first and that the Samsung lawyer purposely left out the question to imply that the results were at odds with each other.
84% said that design was important or very important to them on the first survey.
1% said that design was the next thing they would think of after price when choosing a phone on the second survey.
So the two surveys had a different population responding?
So Apple did in fact doctor the image to make the Galaxy Tab appear to be the same size, used the device in a vertical position when the tab's focus is horizontal. The point is Apple did in fact do the same thing regardless of what they were claiming in that case they are just as guilty.
There's only two things you have to know about this that makes your argument invalid.
1) The issue they were arguing there was trade dress.
2) In cases of trade dress, aspect ratio would be irrelevant.
In other words you can't copy someone else's design and then just make it skinnier. If that were possible then there wouldn't be much point to the protections at all. Since skinny or fat is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the image was re-sized (many think automatically and by mistake).
Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.
You're not thick it is a bit confusing.
The way I understand it the first survey has a question like: "tick off the items that are important to you in regards buying a smartphone" followed by a list of attributes each with five radio buttons after it. The radio buttons are the same for all attributes listed and go "not important," "somewhat important," "important," "very important." (or something similar, I'm guessing here).
On that survey 84% ticked off design as being either important or very important.
On the next survey the question is something like "After price, what's the next most important thing you consider when buying a phone." Followed by a list of things like carriers, roaming, contract length, design, size, etc. etc. etc. (we don't really know what the list is here). The users are asked to rate these things as second, third, fourth etc.
On that survey only 1% picked design as the second thing they would consider after price.
So they could be the same people and be squared with each other because although 84% think design is important or very important, they might be more concerned with the length of their contract or what carrier they were with slightly more than the design overall.
The surveys also *could* have been done with different groups, in different countries etc. We just don't know.
Except for extreme cases, it doesn't matter if it's shorter/longer or if the aspect ratio is different in cases of trade dress. In fact it helps to suss out the differences by making them the same size in this way. It makes the evidence clearer and makes the relevant differences if any, stand out more.
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
Quote:
In August 2011, in response to Apple Computer's patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung, the latter argued that Apple's iPad was effectively modeled on the visual tablets that appear aboard spaceship Discovery in the Space Odyssey film, which legally constitute "prior art". Legally, prior art is information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date that might be relevant to the patent's claim of originality.[167] Samsung appealed specifically to a clip appearing on YouTube arguing
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a still image taken from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film "2001: A Space Odyssey." In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. As with the design claimed by the D'889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor.[168]
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
I'm gonna pretend you don't actually believe a word you wrote, so my head doesn't explode. The fact that you're defending that a non functional prop from a science fiction movie 40 years ago can be considered prior art is mindblowing. Please try to take that further and imagine in how many cases that would apply, and if this is indeed a legitimate standard what prior art CANT be found in science fiction movies. The whole concept is ridiculous. Go ahead and hate Apple for whatever reason, but the problem is when you let that hate distort any critical thinking, and objectivity you might have, and automatically 'root' and defend the other side no matter what.
This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on the Internet in20 years (yes, including years before the commercial web). I presume it must be trolling, but really, a prop in a sci fi movie as prior art? It is a prop, not an invention. The judge quite properly excluded it because the assertion was incredibly stupid and has no place in a court of law. The lawyers for Samsung should be (and might be) ashamed of themselves for such a frivolous motion.
How do you liveblog a trial? Why is that even allowed?
The Apple trials v. Moto and Samsung in Europe and Australia have been live-blogged. In at least one case (in the Netherlands), Andreas Udo de Haes virtually blogged via Twitter one sentence at a time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That was taken from a user survey from Apple, not one by Samsung. On redirect Schiller got a chance to explain the methodology of the survey:
11:47 AM Schiller is being given a chance to explain the chart that had just one percent of customers listing design as important to their decision. He says that in this instance people were asked what element, other than price, would be the most important.
Yeah, saw that. They're taking a very specific set of criteria, coming up with 1% and then trying to insinuate to the jury that only 1% of the people care about design.
People buy things based on looks. Sure it's shallow, but everyone does it. For Samsung to say only 1% of people find looks/design important is beyond stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
It's not confusing at all, just different questions.
For example, let's say you asked people "Besides price, what is the next most important thing to you?"
Most would probably pick things like features, carrier, capacity, size, screen quality and so on. In this case 1% picked design at the most important after price.
However, if you asked people what are the top 3 things you look for, you might get "design" showing up in most of their lists. It's just a different way of looking at the data.
Samsung tried to make it appear only 1% care about design (or another way to see it, 99% don't care), which is completely wrong. Just look at all the arguments online about the looks of the iPhone or whether the new GSIII is ugly or not. Looks (design) matters to people. A lot more than 1%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
No. His point was that the second survey quoted asked a different question from the first and that the Samsung lawyer purposely left out the question to imply that the results were at odds with each other.
84% said that design was important or very important to them on the first survey.
1% said that design was the next thing they would think of after price when choosing a phone on the second survey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
So Apple did in fact doctor the image to make the Galaxy Tab appear to be the same size, used the device in a vertical position when the tab's focus is horizontal. The point is Apple did in fact do the same thing regardless of what they were claiming in that case they are just as guilty.
There's only two things you have to know about this that makes your argument invalid.
1) The issue they were arguing there was trade dress.
2) In cases of trade dress, aspect ratio would be irrelevant.
In other words you can't copy someone else's design and then just make it skinnier. If that were possible then there wouldn't be much point to the protections at all. Since skinny or fat is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the image was re-sized (many think automatically and by mistake).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
So the two surveys had a different population responding?
No, the question is different (although it may appear to be the same when you first read it).
EricTheHalfBee explained it better above.
Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
If that's really true then hats off to Schiller for the quick response, that's one for the ages!
I think if they can get past Scott Forestall this afternoon they will be okay. He has a temper and is most likely (IMO of course) to f*ck things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?
nope
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think if they can get past Scott Forestall this afternoon they will be okay. He has a temper and is most likely (IMO of course) to f*ck things up.
He believes with every fiber of his being that he's in the right, so I doubt he'll do anything but help Apple's case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Didn't Apple doctor pictures to make the galaxy s look the same size as the iphone?
yeah they did
http://www.cybersharq.com/did-apple-doctor-evidence-in-samsung.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.
You're not thick it is a bit confusing.
The way I understand it the first survey has a question like: "tick off the items that are important to you in regards buying a smartphone" followed by a list of attributes each with five radio buttons after it. The radio buttons are the same for all attributes listed and go "not important," "somewhat important," "important," "very important." (or something similar, I'm guessing here).
On that survey 84% ticked off design as being either important or very important.
On the next survey the question is something like "After price, what's the next most important thing you consider when buying a phone." Followed by a list of things like carriers, roaming, contract length, design, size, etc. etc. etc. (we don't really know what the list is here). The users are asked to rate these things as second, third, fourth etc.
On that survey only 1% picked design as the second thing they would consider after price.
So they could be the same people and be squared with each other because although 84% think design is important or very important, they might be more concerned with the length of their contract or what carrier they were with slightly more than the design overall.
The surveys also *could* have been done with different groups, in different countries etc. We just don't know.
They could have been done years apart also AFAIK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
yeah they did
http://www.cybersharq.com/did-apple-doctor-evidence-in-samsung.html
I said nope because it's a trade dress issue.
Except for extreme cases, it doesn't matter if it's shorter/longer or if the aspect ratio is different in cases of trade dress. In fact it helps to suss out the differences by making them the same size in this way. It makes the evidence clearer and makes the relevant differences if any, stand out more.
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
Quote:
In August 2011, in response to Apple Computer's patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung, the latter argued that Apple's iPad was effectively modeled on the visual tablets that appear aboard spaceship Discovery in the Space Odyssey film, which legally constitute "prior art". Legally, prior art is information that has been disclosed to the public in any form about an invention before a given date that might be relevant to the patent's claim of originality.[167] Samsung appealed specifically to a clip appearing on YouTube arguing
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
I'm gonna pretend you don't actually believe a word you wrote, so my head doesn't explode. The fact that you're defending that a non functional prop from a science fiction movie 40 years ago can be considered prior art is mindblowing. Please try to take that further and imagine in how many cases that would apply, and if this is indeed a legitimate standard what prior art CANT be found in science fiction movies. The whole concept is ridiculous. Go ahead and hate Apple for whatever reason, but the problem is when you let that hate distort any critical thinking, and objectivity you might have, and automatically 'root' and defend the other side no matter what.
Originally Posted by Inkling
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad.
Please try to keep up. You can't use science fiction films as prior art. And your use of Wikipedia as proof of anything is laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How do you liveblog a trial? Why is that even allowed?
The Apple trials v. Moto and Samsung in Europe and Australia have been live-blogged. In at least one case (in the Netherlands), Andreas Udo de Haes virtually blogged via Twitter one sentence at a time.