This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
I say forget the money. This case should be treated like Enron and all executives involved in the iClone campaign should face jail time. I didn't think that moving Choi from CEO to another position in the company did much as far as sending a message. The fines may cause downsizing and employees will suffer, but those directly responsible for making the decision to copy will not.
Either jailtime or the fines should come directly out of the executives' pockets. One Won salary for them for the rest of their lives, regardless of whichever companies they end up working for.
Do the crime, do the time.
Really? You think people should be put in prison for copying a commercial competitor's products? A phone, no less? Let's just lock everyone up. Last one in the cell, please shut the door behind you.
I say forget the money. This case should be treated like Enron and all executives involved in the iClone campaign should face jail time. I didn't think that moving Choi from CEO to another position in the company did much as far as sending a message. The fines may cause downsizing and employees will suffer, but those directly responsible for making the decision to copy will not.
Either jailtime or the fines should come directly out of the executives' pockets. One Won salary for them for the rest of their lives, regardless of whichever companies they end up working for.
Do the crime, do the time.
You're making two mistakes. You're basing this off nothing. The two cases aren't really comparable, and you have no idea what what charges would be filed. Beyond that if these executives that face aforementioned charges reside in S. Korea, you would be looking at extradition. This isn't anything more than a matter between two companies right now, and that won't change just because you like Apple more than Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's the common take away. If a jury sees this as damning and they know you've deleted other evidence but not this it's only natural to assume that the other evidence isn't just more damning, but considerably more damning. This is why it's better to convolute the data instead of bringing focus to something that allows our minds to go wild with speculation. Just think about this forum and the disappointment with each new Apple product for not meeting some impossible goal.
I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on the group of people, but I see way too many emotionally driven posts on these matters. It depends somewhat on the jury that is chosen, but I wouldn't think of forum comments as a neutral source for the direction of legal matters. I've been trying to ignore some of the really dumb posts, as there's no way I'd reply with anything nice. It's not like I'm really biased in favor of Samsung. Most of the Samsung stuff I've owned has existed in the form of captive components within different Macs. I think I've owned one or two random things with Samsung branding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantz
Plus 250 years in jail for their top execs, how does that sound ?
You don't get to randomly assign punishment. You would need criminal charges. If these executive live in South Korea, they would have to be charged under Korean jurisdiction with something that is considered a criminal matter in South Korea. If you are suggesting they be charged in the US, you are a very naive person. The likelihood of extradition over corporate matters is not very high. Beyond that they are not being charged with murder or treason. You are going solely on emotions here.
OJ was found not-guilty in the criminal trial but was found guilty in the civil trial. That is very telling of how the justice system works between criminal and civil cases. Because this is a civil case it's more likely Samsung will be found guilty than had this been a criminal case with the same jury, judge and lawyers.
No one is found guilty in a civil trial. They can be found liable, but guilt (and innocence) is only relevant in criminal proceedings.
It would appear OJ's son was the guilty party which would have put OJ in a tough spot. OJ probably figured it out, there was pretty good evidence, should he report his own son? I can see that being a tough decision. So maybe the courts got it right, OJ was not guilty of the murder but indirectly was liable.
You're making two mistakes. You're basing this off nothing. The two cases aren't really comparable, and you have no idea what what charges would be filed. Beyond that if these executives that face aforementioned charges reside in S. Korea, you would be looking at extradition. This isn't anything more than a matter between two companies right now, and that won't change just because you like Apple more than Samsung.
I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on the group of people, but I see way too many emotionally driven posts on these matters. It depends somewhat on the jury that is chosen, but I wouldn't think of forum comments as a neutral source for the direction of legal matters. I've been trying to ignore some of the really dumb posts, as there's no way I'd reply with anything nice. It's not like I'm really biased in favor of Samsung. Most of the Samsung stuff I've owned has existed in the form of captive components within different Macs. I think I've owned one or two random things with Samsung branding.
You don't get to randomly assign punishment. You would need criminal charges. If these executive live in South Korea, they would have to be charged under Korean jurisdiction with something that is considered a criminal matter in South Korea. If you are suggesting they be charged in the US, you are a very naive person. The likelihood of extradition over corporate matters is not very high. Beyond that they are not being charged with murder or treason. You are going solely on emotions here.
Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.
What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple
get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a
shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.
Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.
These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,
is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.
In the screenshot, the Samsung analysis says the reason their "end call" button is bad (compared to the iPhone) is that another button nearby could accidentally be pressed. Isn't that backwards? The reason you want "end call" away from other buttons is so you don't accidentally press *it* and hang up on someone.
Take that assumption 'Sammy is copying Apple' away for a moment and read again.
Of course, if you truly like some aspects of competition, then you would want yours be more like them. Does this translate to 'copy'?
BTW, this report analyses Galaxy S and iPhone and made suggestions after Sammy marketed Galaxy S obviously. Can you tell me any Sammy smartphone since Galaxy S that looks alike iPhone any more than Galaxy S? You can not prove that Sammy is copying Apple from this report.
Seriously? Even after reading the line that's something like "Icons look like they're been copied from iPhone, try to differentiate"
Do you seriously mean that it doesn't prove Samsung copied? I still cannot believe how people can second such a practice. If Apple can't win at least one of the several infringement claims using this document, then I don't know what will help Apple. I think the world's just not the kind of place anymore where true innovation is appreciated. It's sad and pathetic.
In the screenshot, the Samsung analysis says the reason their "end call" button is bad (compared to the iPhone) is that another button nearby could accidentally be pressed. Isn't that backwards? The reason you want "end call" away from other buttons is so you don't accidentally press *it* and hang up on someone.
While that is another way of looking at it. Try thinking about it this way: "How many times in a day would a normal user try to hit the "end call" vs any other buttons?", out of all those buttons "End call" is the one most users will use. So take it out and put it in a place where there are no other buttons, which reduces both the chance of ending the call by mistake and the odds of hitting the wrong button to the end the call.
Of course! This is the most obvious way in which you can make improvements to your product - By comparing it to a successful competitors' Product, what's new in it guys, GROW UP!.
Trouble is that several times, the instruction is to do what Apple did, sometimes in exact detail. That's damning for Samsung
This comparative list is tame. It doesn't suggest they need to steal anything, just make it better. Maybe Samsung should do all their comparisons in such a way from now on. Like reverse engineering this could be reverse innovation, perfectly legal but still somewhat shady.
"Reverse inspiration" is a meaningless term. "Reverse Engineering" is not always legal at all. It's a method of finding out how something works with an eye to copying it. If the copying part is in violation of patents, it still isn't legal no matter what.
Particularly in the field of art and design, "reverse engineering" (which again isn't really a meaningful term), is just another way of saying "copying."
It would appear OJ's son was the guilty party which would have put OJ in a tough spot. OJ probably figured it out, there was pretty good evidence, should he report his own son? I can see that being a tough decision. So maybe the courts got it right, OJ was not guilty of the murder but indirectly was liable.
Oh come on. This is tasteless and not even funny. You don't actually believe this nonsense do you?
This is pretty damning stuff, but only if Apple lawyers can maximize its potential. Can't say that I am overly impressed with what we have heard of their case to date. Bringing in a 3rd party expert witness that Samsung lawyers was able to discredit so easily? C'mon!
Furthermore, I am puzzled by the lack of logical flow to the presentation of evidence. People here have done a better job of assembling the damning evidence. But I do recognize we are getting the play-by-play second hand, and the case has months to come.
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
I'll personally be surprised if those two design patents are found both valid and infringed. You're absolutely correct that many Samsung phones have flat rectangular displays with evenly rounded corners which is all the least descriptive of the two design patents lays claim to. IMO that makes it too broad to pass muster, but I'm not on the jury either.
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
And what's happened since then?
The entire unimaginative, derivative, boring industry has taken to using Apple as their collective R&D dept. And today, we're seeing the results of that - namely in Apple's objections voiced via the courts.
Tell the also-rans to come up with their own June 2007 and January 2011. *Crickets* I'm sure.
Sorry to say you are wrong on that. English may be your second language so you may miss what the translated text is saying.
Maybe you're wrong.
Yes, English is my 3rd language but let me reassure you: during a management assessment, I was in the top 1% for reading, understanding and reproducing-using-other-words an English text. 1% of a university degree crowd that is.
And to elaborate on that, I had a perfect score for correctly interpreting words like "all", "some", "any", "most", "may", "none", "might", "can", "could", "will", ... the tricky words.
You may think that I have some linguistic skills but you'd be wrong again. In fact, this score just reflects the fact that I had a perfect score for logic as well (with a knack for fuzzy logic)
Comments
Buh-stid!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.
it's one sided because the facts are that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts
I say forget the money. This case should be treated like Enron and all executives involved in the iClone campaign should face jail time. I didn't think that moving Choi from CEO to another position in the company did much as far as sending a message. The fines may cause downsizing and employees will suffer, but those directly responsible for making the decision to copy will not.
Either jailtime or the fines should come directly out of the executives' pockets. One Won salary for them for the rest of their lives, regardless of whichever companies they end up working for.
Do the crime, do the time.
Really? You think people should be put in prison for copying a commercial competitor's products? A phone, no less? Let's just lock everyone up. Last one in the cell, please shut the door behind you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts
I say forget the money. This case should be treated like Enron and all executives involved in the iClone campaign should face jail time. I didn't think that moving Choi from CEO to another position in the company did much as far as sending a message. The fines may cause downsizing and employees will suffer, but those directly responsible for making the decision to copy will not.
Either jailtime or the fines should come directly out of the executives' pockets. One Won salary for them for the rest of their lives, regardless of whichever companies they end up working for.
Do the crime, do the time.
You're making two mistakes. You're basing this off nothing. The two cases aren't really comparable, and you have no idea what what charges would be filed. Beyond that if these executives that face aforementioned charges reside in S. Korea, you would be looking at extradition. This isn't anything more than a matter between two companies right now, and that won't change just because you like Apple more than Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's the common take away. If a jury sees this as damning and they know you've deleted other evidence but not this it's only natural to assume that the other evidence isn't just more damning, but considerably more damning. This is why it's better to convolute the data instead of bringing focus to something that allows our minds to go wild with speculation. Just think about this forum and the disappointment with each new Apple product for not meeting some impossible goal.
I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on the group of people, but I see way too many emotionally driven posts on these matters. It depends somewhat on the jury that is chosen, but I wouldn't think of forum comments as a neutral source for the direction of legal matters. I've been trying to ignore some of the really dumb posts, as there's no way I'd reply with anything nice. It's not like I'm really biased in favor of Samsung. Most of the Samsung stuff I've owned has existed in the form of captive components within different Macs. I think I've owned one or two random things with Samsung branding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantz
Plus 250 years in jail for their top execs, how does that sound ?
You don't get to randomly assign punishment. You would need criminal charges. If these executive live in South Korea, they would have to be charged under Korean jurisdiction with something that is considered a criminal matter in South Korea. If you are suggesting they be charged in the US, you are a very naive person. The likelihood of extradition over corporate matters is not very high. Beyond that they are not being charged with murder or treason. You are going solely on emotions here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
OJ was found not-guilty in the criminal trial but was found guilty in the civil trial. That is very telling of how the justice system works between criminal and civil cases. Because this is a civil case it's more likely Samsung will be found guilty than had this been a criminal case with the same jury, judge and lawyers.
No one is found guilty in a civil trial. They can be found liable, but guilt (and innocence) is only relevant in criminal proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You're making two mistakes. You're basing this off nothing. The two cases aren't really comparable, and you have no idea what what charges would be filed. Beyond that if these executives that face aforementioned charges reside in S. Korea, you would be looking at extradition. This isn't anything more than a matter between two companies right now, and that won't change just because you like Apple more than Samsung.
I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on the group of people, but I see way too many emotionally driven posts on these matters. It depends somewhat on the jury that is chosen, but I wouldn't think of forum comments as a neutral source for the direction of legal matters. I've been trying to ignore some of the really dumb posts, as there's no way I'd reply with anything nice. It's not like I'm really biased in favor of Samsung. Most of the Samsung stuff I've owned has existed in the form of captive components within different Macs. I think I've owned one or two random things with Samsung branding.
You don't get to randomly assign punishment. You would need criminal charges. If these executive live in South Korea, they would have to be charged under Korean jurisdiction with something that is considered a criminal matter in South Korea. If you are suggesting they be charged in the US, you are a very naive person. The likelihood of extradition over corporate matters is not very high. Beyond that they are not being charged with murder or treason. You are going solely on emotions here.
Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.
What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple
get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a
shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.
Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.
These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,
is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.
In the screenshot, the Samsung analysis says the reason their "end call" button is bad (compared to the iPhone) is that another button nearby could accidentally be pressed. Isn't that backwards? The reason you want "end call" away from other buttons is so you don't accidentally press *it* and hang up on someone.
OH, crap!
How Apple did get its grip on those documents?
All you San[SCUM] loyalists must THX! apple for this. BCause San[SCUM] will never be the same.
South Korea has plenty of young designers. San[SCUM] only have to change its phylosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
Take that assumption 'Sammy is copying Apple' away for a moment and read again.
Of course, if you truly like some aspects of competition, then you would want yours be more like them. Does this translate to 'copy'?
BTW, this report analyses Galaxy S and iPhone and made suggestions after Sammy marketed Galaxy S obviously. Can you tell me any Sammy smartphone since Galaxy S that looks alike iPhone any more than Galaxy S? You can not prove that Sammy is copying Apple from this report.
Seriously? Even after reading the line that's something like "Icons look like they're been copied from iPhone, try to differentiate"
Do you seriously mean that it doesn't prove Samsung copied? I still cannot believe how people can second such a practice. If Apple can't win at least one of the several infringement claims using this document, then I don't know what will help Apple. I think the world's just not the kind of place anymore where true innovation is appreciated. It's sad and pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
In the screenshot, the Samsung analysis says the reason their "end call" button is bad (compared to the iPhone) is that another button nearby could accidentally be pressed. Isn't that backwards? The reason you want "end call" away from other buttons is so you don't accidentally press *it* and hang up on someone.
While that is another way of looking at it. Try thinking about it this way: "How many times in a day would a normal user try to hit the "end call" vs any other buttons?", out of all those buttons "End call" is the one most users will use. So take it out and put it in a place where there are no other buttons, which reduces both the chance of ending the call by mistake and the odds of hitting the wrong button to the end the call.
Trouble is that several times, the instruction is to do what Apple did, sometimes in exact detail. That's damning for Samsung
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This comparative list is tame. It doesn't suggest they need to steal anything, just make it better. Maybe Samsung should do all their comparisons in such a way from now on. Like reverse engineering this could be reverse innovation, perfectly legal but still somewhat shady.
"Reverse inspiration" is a meaningless term. "Reverse Engineering" is not always legal at all. It's a method of finding out how something works with an eye to copying it. If the copying part is in violation of patents, it still isn't legal no matter what.
Particularly in the field of art and design, "reverse engineering" (which again isn't really a meaningful term), is just another way of saying "copying."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath
It would appear OJ's son was the guilty party which would have put OJ in a tough spot. OJ probably figured it out, there was pretty good evidence, should he report his own son? I can see that being a tough decision. So maybe the courts got it right, OJ was not guilty of the murder but indirectly was liable.
Oh come on. This is tasteless and not even funny. You don't actually believe this nonsense do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
This is pretty damning stuff, but only if Apple lawyers can maximize its potential. Can't say that I am overly impressed with what we have heard of their case to date. Bringing in a 3rd party expert witness that Samsung lawyers was able to discredit so easily? C'mon!
Furthermore, I am puzzled by the lack of logical flow to the presentation of evidence. People here have done a better job of assembling the damning evidence. But I do recognize we are getting the play-by-play second hand, and the case has months to come.
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Trouble is that several times, the instruction is to do what Apple did, sometimes in exact detail. That's damning for Samsung
Gosh, I was sarcastic, read the line below it!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them. I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.
I'll personally be surprised if those two design patents are found both valid and infringed. You're absolutely correct that many Samsung phones have flat rectangular displays with evenly rounded corners which is all the least descriptive of the two design patents lays claim to. IMO that makes it too broad to pass muster, but I'm not on the jury either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.
I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.
And what's happened since then?
The entire unimaginative, derivative, boring industry has taken to using Apple as their collective R&D dept. And today, we're seeing the results of that - namely in Apple's objections voiced via the courts.
Tell the also-rans to come up with their own June 2007 and January 2011. *Crickets* I'm sure.
Maybe you're wrong.
Yes, English is my 3rd language but let me reassure you: during a management assessment, I was in the top 1% for reading, understanding and reproducing-using-other-words an English text. 1% of a university degree crowd that is.
And to elaborate on that, I had a perfect score for correctly interpreting words like "all", "some", "any", "most", "may", "none", "might", "can", "could", "will", ... the tricky words.
You may think that I have some linguistic skills but you'd be wrong again. In fact, this score just reflects the fact that I had a perfect score for logic as well (with a knack for fuzzy logic)