It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.
Judge finds fault with Apple = Judge is not so biased after all (even though she wasn't to begin with.)
Samsung's idiocy gets them into trouble with Judge = Judge must be getting paid off/getting free Apple gear. LMAO
because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
I'm 99% sure what he actually meant to say was "It is really hard for Samsung to fight, because from day one the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple."
That is a logical sentence for the point he's trying to get across. The English language is quite tough for non-native speakers to master. I encounter this kind of unintentional miscommunication on a daily basis with non-native speakers. I think he's totally wrong, but at least now you know what he was trying to say.
Just saying that Samsung got slammed there. A bit esoteric and in left field but it was both late and the first think that came to mind, and I can't recall any other time that song came to mind after reading an AI article so I added it. I thought it might be fun, if nothing else.
A rather bold statement.
I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?
Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.
He is saying that the two judges on the trial are partial because Samsung is unable to meet any deadlines that have been in place for over a year. It is also clear from the way Samsung complains about rules Samsung pushed for, the judges are to blame. In short, his post was as well reasoned as a Samsung motion.
I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements.
I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements.
I think Samsung might have to pay Apple more than they asking for in the trial. Maybe not in cash, but in some way. My reasoning is that even if Apple is only awarded a fraction of what they are claiming for damages and even if not all claims by Apple are acknowledged by the court (both I think are likely) Apple still gets the precedence set by the court which will help protect them against other companies thinking about doing the same thing. If they settle, Samsung is still the most successful Android-based vendors 2nd in the handset business to Apple, to me, that validates Samsung's shady actions. How much is the precedence worth in a one time pay out? Sometimes beating your opponent so badly that others will think twice before fighting you.
I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements.
Which is what should have happened long before this trial began. Some pundits are already labeling the new Samsung tablet as the first tablet designed completely by lawyers. It is obvious that the thing was designed to get around Apple's objections.
Yeah, I think I agree... they may settle out of court for undisclosed licensing terms. I don't think they'll be able to have a cash settlement and still have it be hidden though. Apple will likely still seek around $2B in compensation. Since that's around 40% profit last quarter, I think Samsung will do anything to keep that number from showing up in any meaningful way on their next quarter's report since they just had a record quarter.
Still, Apple wants the public to know that ( in their opinion ) Samsung copied them. I'm not sure Apple would take the money. I think they want to effect of judgment against Samsung.
As Steve Jobs most famously said, Apple has plenty of money.
I guess it all depends on how strongly the Apple legal team thinks they're doing in their case.
A lost case for Apple will only embolden competition, but.. really... aren't they all being pretty darn bold right now? Will that really have any material impact?
A loss for Samsung will be catastrophic to their image, and significant impact to their finances.
Samsung should have never let this go to trial. They have the most to lose from anything.
The fanboys will never lose their loyalty, but if CNN or USA today puts up the headline "Samsung found guilty" that alone will affect sales from the average consumer.
I think Samsung might have to pay Apple more than they asking for in the trial. Maybe not in cash, but in some way. My reasoning is that even if Apple is only awarded a fraction of what they are claiming for damages and even if not all claims by Apple are acknowledged by the court (both I think are likely) Apple still gets the precedence set by the court which will help protect them against other companies thinking about doing the same thing. If they settle, Samsung is still the most successful Android-based vendors 2nd in the handset business to Apple, to me, that validates Samsung's shady actions. How much is the precedence worth in a one time pay out? Sometimes beating your opponent so badly that others will think twice before fighting you.
Emphasis on the bolded part.
I don't expect Samsung to write Apple a check for $2.5 B or anything even close to that if the two sides settle.
Rather, Apple is going to want an ironclad agreement from Samsung that they will immediately stop using Apple's IP. That will be combined with a payment that is large enough to not be considered a token payment. While it is unlikely that Samsung will agree to admit guilt in a negotiated settlement, a payment in excess of $100 M would be as good as an admission of guilt in the eyes of most observers.
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago?
Probably the same way we did before email. Printing it, storing it in a file folder, in a file cabinet. With the computer you can just save individual emails, copy paste the contents of them, etc. If needed. If you need to do anything you don't want a paper trail for, you have a meeting and don't take notes.
2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.
2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.
They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service... As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle". The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server. This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.
No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.
They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service... As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle". The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server. This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.
No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.
The system is designed such that any email that supports their case is saved and any email that harms their case is deleted. Quite a remarkable piece of programming really.
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
Let's put down the dream pipe.
What you said is closer to what Apple would get if Apple wins (excluding 6, that's totally irrelevant)
Either way, this thing will be appealed, so this trial so far is just pop-corn material.
He should've said "some" like the F700, the Japanese guy, and now this. I'd rather see a case judged on all the evidence available not with one party handcuffed, but Samsung is mostly to blame here so it's hard to sympathize. The legal team should've had all their ducks in a row and were given ample chance to do so.
Samsung knows what they're doing. They're going to lose so they want to have as many possible "reasons" to file an appeal as possible. This way they can avoid paying Apple or changing business practices until the appeal, buying themselves another year to delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, over that year they can further cement their position in the market so when the time comes to pay up it won't matter.
email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago?
Uh... thats the only way they can conduct business, an evidence trail would only get in the way.
What you said is closer to what Apple would get if Apple wins (excluding 6, that's totally irrelevant)
Either way, this thing will be appealed, so this trial so far is just pop-corn material.
Not even close. If Apple wins, they could easily win a multibillion dollar judgment and an order for all infringing items to be taken off the market immediately. Furthermore, it would involve great loss of face for Samsung due to being found guilty in a trial. My suggestions are only a fraction of what Samsung might have to pay if they lose, but allow each side to get most of what they want.
#6 is most certainly not irrelevant. The court would not order that as a penalty, but if Samsung and Apple reach an agreement, it is entirely possible that Apple would take at least some of the money as discount on future sales rather than cash. It would be easier on Samsung which means that Samsung would be more willing to agree to it.
Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.
Judge finds fault with Apple = Judge is not so biased after all (even though she wasn't to begin with.)
Samsung's idiocy gets them into trouble with Judge = Judge must be getting paid off/getting free Apple gear. LMAO
Really? LIke, REALLY??? Come on . . . *rolleyes*
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Samsung is really hard to fight.
because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
I'm 99% sure what he actually meant to say was "It is really hard for Samsung to fight, because from day one the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple."
That is a logical sentence for the point he's trying to get across. The English language is quite tough for non-native speakers to master. I encounter this kind of unintentional miscommunication on a daily basis with non-native speakers. I think he's totally wrong, but at least now you know what he was trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Or perhaps, more appropriately, "I'm just trollin,' "
Perhaps there should be a trolling emoticon? (or perhaps there already is one?)
(8^@)=
(8^@)=
Hmm... somehow when I see this, something like 845032 comes to my mind.
Just saying that Samsung got slammed there. A bit esoteric and in left field but it was both late and the first think that came to mind, and I can't recall any other time that song came to mind after reading an AI article so I added it. I thought it might be fun, if nothing else.
He is saying that the two judges on the trial are partial because Samsung is unable to meet any deadlines that have been in place for over a year. It is also clear from the way Samsung complains about rules Samsung pushed for, the judges are to blame. In short, his post was as well reasoned as a Samsung motion.
A: Illegally.
I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements.
I think Samsung might have to pay Apple more than they asking for in the trial. Maybe not in cash, but in some way. My reasoning is that even if Apple is only awarded a fraction of what they are claiming for damages and even if not all claims by Apple are acknowledged by the court (both I think are likely) Apple still gets the precedence set by the court which will help protect them against other companies thinking about doing the same thing. If they settle, Samsung is still the most successful Android-based vendors 2nd in the handset business to Apple, to me, that validates Samsung's shady actions. How much is the precedence worth in a one time pay out? Sometimes beating your opponent so badly that others will think twice before fighting you.
Which is what should have happened long before this trial began. Some pundits are already labeling the new Samsung tablet as the first tablet designed completely by lawyers. It is obvious that the thing was designed to get around Apple's objections.
Yeah, I think I agree... they may settle out of court for undisclosed licensing terms. I don't think they'll be able to have a cash settlement and still have it be hidden though. Apple will likely still seek around $2B in compensation. Since that's around 40% profit last quarter, I think Samsung will do anything to keep that number from showing up in any meaningful way on their next quarter's report since they just had a record quarter.
Still, Apple wants the public to know that ( in their opinion ) Samsung copied them. I'm not sure Apple would take the money. I think they want to effect of judgment against Samsung.
As Steve Jobs most famously said, Apple has plenty of money.
I guess it all depends on how strongly the Apple legal team thinks they're doing in their case.
A lost case for Apple will only embolden competition, but.. really... aren't they all being pretty darn bold right now? Will that really have any material impact?
A loss for Samsung will be catastrophic to their image, and significant impact to their finances.
Samsung should have never let this go to trial. They have the most to lose from anything.
The fanboys will never lose their loyalty, but if CNN or USA today puts up the headline "Samsung found guilty" that alone will affect sales from the average consumer.
Emphasis on the bolded part.
I don't expect Samsung to write Apple a check for $2.5 B or anything even close to that if the two sides settle.
Rather, Apple is going to want an ironclad agreement from Samsung that they will immediately stop using Apple's IP. That will be combined with a payment that is large enough to not be considered a token payment. While it is unlikely that Samsung will agree to admit guilt in a negotiated settlement, a payment in excess of $100 M would be as good as an admission of guilt in the eyes of most observers.
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago?
Probably the same way we did before email. Printing it, storing it in a file folder, in a file cabinet. With the computer you can just save individual emails, copy paste the contents of them, etc. If needed. If you need to do anything you don't want a paper trail for, you have a meeting and don't take notes.
2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.
They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service... As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle". The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server. This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.
No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode
They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service... As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle". The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server. This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.
No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.
The system is designed such that any email that supports their case is saved and any email that harms their case is deleted. Quite a remarkable piece of programming really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
Let's put down the dream pipe.
What you said is closer to what Apple would get if Apple wins (excluding 6, that's totally irrelevant)
Either way, this thing will be appealed, so this trial so far is just pop-corn material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
He should've said "some" like the F700, the Japanese guy, and now this. I'd rather see a case judged on all the evidence available not with one party handcuffed, but Samsung is mostly to blame here so it's hard to sympathize. The legal team should've had all their ducks in a row and were given ample chance to do so.
Samsung knows what they're doing. They're going to lose so they want to have as many possible "reasons" to file an appeal as possible. This way they can avoid paying Apple or changing business practices until the appeal, buying themselves another year to delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, over that year they can further cement their position in the market so when the time comes to pay up it won't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago?
Uh... thats the only way they can conduct business, an evidence trail would only get in the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Samsung is really hard to fight.
because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?
Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? Perhaps you mean, "Samsung is in for a hard fight because the judge ...." But then, that would be wrong.
If Apple wins, how would its stock be affected? If it loses?
Not even close. If Apple wins, they could easily win a multibillion dollar judgment and an order for all infringing items to be taken off the market immediately. Furthermore, it would involve great loss of face for Samsung due to being found guilty in a trial. My suggestions are only a fraction of what Samsung might have to pay if they lose, but allow each side to get most of what they want.
#6 is most certainly not irrelevant. The court would not order that as a penalty, but if Samsung and Apple reach an agreement, it is entirely possible that Apple would take at least some of the money as discount on future sales rather than cash. It would be easier on Samsung which means that Samsung would be more willing to agree to it.
Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.