Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the runner up market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
Let me clarify.
Racism is stereotyping an entire race. Racism is generalisation regarding race. Racism is NOT talking about a race.
I can talk about any race as much as I like, it is not offensive to anyone, nor is it racism until I generalise an entire race.
I would just like to point out, I'm talking about one person. If anyone thinks this thread has had any racism I suggest renerolling at your local school.
Wrong. You think she has a bias because she's Korean. If the judge was white or black, that "bias" thought would not have crept up in your mind.
Let me guess, you're probably white so you think you know how minorities feel.
Wrong. You think she has a bias because she's Korean. If the judge was white or black, that "bias" thought would not have crept up in your mind.
Let me guess, you're probably white so you think you know how minorities feel.
I am making a connection between the nationality of a company and the nationality of a person. It has no further meaning than that. Stop looking for something more. It doesn't need to include the rest of the race of Koreans. It was merely an observation.
If (like he did), Obama veto's a ban on Apple products, vs Samsung case, I make an observation and say, oh, hey, Obama is the president of the US (i.e., favouring America): isn't that a coincidence. I am not being racist towards Americans. (Yes, I know in this case the patent was FRAND, which is why he vetoed, but I am still entitled to that observation).
Similarly in this case a judge of Korean descent has favoured a Korean company. I have made an observation. I'm sure the real reason is valid, for her to rule with Samsung on the patents, but again, I am entitled to that observation, and it doesn't have to be racist.
She is Korean American, other Asians have different culture and moral than Koreans, I think she has been biased.
You make a lot of claims that just rely on the general tone of the articles as evidence, then allude to race/cultural heritage/whatever you want to call it as opposed to real proof or even simple anecdotes. Do you think this stuff through?
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler
I am Asian, but won't agreed with her as she is behaving like there is a hidden agenda
What's ridiculous is that you still don't realize that it's irrelevant. Everyone claiming a hidden agenda is doing so from whatever AI posts. They aren't looking through every court document. Further even if she was biased in some way, that would not prove that it stems from her race. Your conclusions lack any real basis.
I am making a connection between the nationality of a company and the nationality of a person. It has no further meaning than that. Stop looking for something more. It doesn't need to include the rest of the race of Koreans. It was merely an observation.
If (like he did), Obama veto's a ban on Apple products, vs Samsung case, I make an observation and say, oh, hey, Obama is the president of the US (i.e., favouring America): isn't that a coincidence. I am not being racist towards Americans. (Yes, I know in this case the patent was FRAND, which is why he vetoed, but I am still entitled to that observation).
Similarly in this case a judge of Korean descent has favoured a Korean company. I have made an observation. I'm sure the real reason is valid, for her to rule with Samsung on the patents, but again, I am entitled to that observation, and it doesn't have to be racist.
/overandout
You may not be explicitly saying that, but you are inferring that because she is the same nationality as a party in the case, she can't be impartial. She's also American so if she ruled in favor of Apple, would you say she had a bias towards Apple? Of course not.
I haven't seen anything anyone has said as definitive racism. Stop it people.
This is what you're looking for:
nationalism |?naSH?n??liz?m|nounpatriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.• an extreme form of this, esp. marked by a feeling of superiority over othercountries.• advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
And yes She's American, but many people (of many races) feel a bond to their roots.
I am making a connection between the nationality of a company and the nationality of a person. It has no further meaning than that. Stop looking for something more. It doesn't need to include the rest of the race of Koreans. It was merely an observation.
If (like he did), Obama veto's a ban on Apple products, vs Samsung case, I make an observation and say, oh, hey, Obama is the president of the US (i.e., favouring America): isn't that a coincidence. I am not being racist towards Americans. (Yes, I know in this case the patent was FRAND, which is why he vetoed, but I am still entitled to that observation).
Similarly in this case a judge of Korean descent has favoured a Korean company. I have made an observation. I'm sure the real reason is valid, for her to rule with Samsung on the patents, but again, I am entitled to that observation, and it doesn't have to be racist.
/overandout
Veto isn't an accurate term there, in spite of having been reported that way. You can only veto a bill. I'm not sure if he discouraged an injunction there, but I can look it up. What you completely miss (assuming you aren't trolling) is that the judge is American. According to the Wiki pages, she was born in DC. American isn't really a race, but that doesn't matter either. If you were trying to prove something, it would require more than an observation. As it is right now you're just writing libelous nonsense without any evidence or really logical connection.
You may not be explicitly saying that, but you are inferring that because she is the same nationality as a party in the case, she can't be impartial. She's also American so if she ruled in favor of Apple, would you say she had a bias towards Apple? Of course not.
Veto isn't an accurate term there, in spite of having been reported that way. You can only veto a bill. I'm not sure if he discouraged an injunction there, but I can look it up. What you completely miss (assuming you aren't trolling) is that the judge is American. According to the Wiki pages, she was born in DC. American isn't really a race, but that doesn't matter either. If you were trying to prove something, it would require more than an observation. As it is right now you're just writing libelous nonsense without any evidence or really logical connection.
Let me clear something up, my original comment was light hearted and in a jokingly manner. It's like comment #4 or something, check it out. I apologise if it did not come across that way. I in no way believe she is biased towards Samsung because of her heritage. I am merely defending the point I am not being racist.
Whether you want to look into it in its deepest possible respect and try and look for racism, as I said, I am making a connection between an attribute of a person and a company.
Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the runner up market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
Apple should investigate if Samsung is padding the pockets of Judge Lucy Koh's family back in Korea. I know first-hand how this stuff works in some parts of the world, it is a common practice to send someone's kids to college or buy someone a nice mansion in the islands.
Let me clear something up, my original comment was light hearted and in a jokingly manner. It's like comment #4 or something, check it out. I apologise if it did not come across that way. I in no way believe she is biased towards Samsung because of her heritage. I am merely defending the point I am not being racist.
Whether you want to look into it in its deepest possible respect and try and look for racism, as I said, I am making a connection between an attribute of a person and a company.
So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that additional damages for lost profits on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.
ii agree with her decision about additional damages....but you could argue that new devices require additional licensing like msft and everyone else pays to Apple.
So Apple copy Samsung Tab 7 with IPad Mini. Blatant to see for all!
actually is not a blatant copy in terms of look or size or screen ratio. For a while i used to confuse Samsung devices with Apple devices....Apple entering the mini tablet market has never even remotely looked like a samsung device at all. In fact the mini looked just like a iTouch. I think thats why mini got the new tablet design first.
Cannot believe all of the racist comments on here. Unbelievable. Apple crazy fanboys have truly reached the limit here.
Yes. This is racist.
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
Next thing we'll hear is that it's "racist" to wonder if the familial ties between judges and attorneys in the Eastern District of Texas patent suits somehow influence the decisions there...
I can see where the comment about one Asian defending fellow "Asians" could be considered ignorant since few Asians see other nationalities as 'fellow' - no love lost between China, Korea, Japan, etc., but ignorance of history and/or geography isn't racism. (A comment about how Oriental judges rulings are as bad as their driving - that would be racist, OK? Until then, please lose the over-PC chip on the shoulder.)
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
It is racist to consider the fact that someone's origin may bias their decisions.
It's like saying "being a Jew makes you a possible danger for all Aryans" : inacceptable, scandalous, and racist.
It is inappropriate, and no amount of insults will change that. Oh, and by the way wuss : a weak or ineffectual person (often used as a general term of abuse).
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
Next thing we'll hear is that it's "racist" to wonder if the familial ties between judges and attorneys in the Eastern District of Texas patent suits somehow influence the decisions there...
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I can </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">see where the comment about one Asian defending fellow "Asians" could be considered</span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">ignorant</em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">since few Asians see other nationalities as 'fellow' - no love lost between China, Korea, Japan, etc., but ignorance of history and/or geography </span>
isn't<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> racism. (A comment about how Oriental judges rulings are as bad as their driving - that would be racist, OK? Until then, please lose the over-PC chip on the shoulder.)</span>
Seriously? Do you question the judge if he/she was white? No you wouldn't. But if the judge doesn't "look" American , then you start questioning? That's racist.
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
Next thing we'll hear is that it's "racist" to wonder if the familial ties between judges and attorneys in the Eastern District of Texas patent suits somehow influence the decisions there...
I can see where the comment about one Asian defending fellow "Asians" could be considered ignorant since few Asians see other nationalities as 'fellow' - no love lost between China, Korea, Japan, etc., but ignorance of history and/or geography isn't racism. (A comment about how Oriental judges rulings are as bad as their driving - that would be racist, OK? Until then, please lose the over-PC chip on the shoulder.)
They are looking for something to shoehorn into their preconceived notions. It's unlikely that any of them spent have read through court documents or anything of importance. They just see where Apple didn't win something and look for a source of bias that fits their world view. It remains completely idiotic.
Comments
Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the runner up market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
Wrong. You think she has a bias because she's Korean. If the judge was white or black, that "bias" thought would not have crept up in your mind.
Let me guess, you're probably white so you think you know how minorities feel.
Wrong. You think she has a bias because she's Korean. If the judge was white or black, that "bias" thought would not have crept up in your mind.
Let me guess, you're probably white so you think you know how minorities feel.
I am making a connection between the nationality of a company and the nationality of a person. It has no further meaning than that. Stop looking for something more. It doesn't need to include the rest of the race of Koreans. It was merely an observation.
If (like he did), Obama veto's a ban on Apple products, vs Samsung case, I make an observation and say, oh, hey, Obama is the president of the US (i.e., favouring America): isn't that a coincidence. I am not being racist towards Americans. (Yes, I know in this case the patent was FRAND, which is why he vetoed, but I am still entitled to that observation).
Similarly in this case a judge of Korean descent has favoured a Korean company. I have made an observation. I'm sure the real reason is valid, for her to rule with Samsung on the patents, but again, I am entitled to that observation, and it doesn't have to be racist.
/overandout
She is Korean American, other Asians have different culture and moral than Koreans, I think she has been biased.
You make a lot of claims that just rely on the general tone of the articles as evidence, then allude to race/cultural heritage/whatever you want to call it as opposed to real proof or even simple anecdotes. Do you think this stuff through?
I am Asian, but won't agreed with her as she is behaving like there is a hidden agenda
What's ridiculous is that you still don't realize that it's irrelevant. Everyone claiming a hidden agenda is doing so from whatever AI posts. They aren't looking through every court document. Further even if she was biased in some way, that would not prove that it stems from her race. Your conclusions lack any real basis.
You may not be explicitly saying that, but you are inferring that because she is the same nationality as a party in the case, she can't be impartial. She's also American so if she ruled in favor of Apple, would you say she had a bias towards Apple? Of course not.
I haven't seen anything anyone has said as definitive racism. Stop it people.
This is what you're looking for:
nationalism |?naSH?n??liz?m|nounpatriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.• an extreme form of this, esp. marked by a feeling of superiority over othercountries.• advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
And yes She's American, but many people (of many races) feel a bond to their roots.
I am making a connection between the nationality of a company and the nationality of a person. It has no further meaning than that. Stop looking for something more. It doesn't need to include the rest of the race of Koreans. It was merely an observation.
If (like he did), Obama veto's a ban on Apple products, vs Samsung case, I make an observation and say, oh, hey, Obama is the president of the US (i.e., favouring America): isn't that a coincidence. I am not being racist towards Americans. (Yes, I know in this case the patent was FRAND, which is why he vetoed, but I am still entitled to that observation).
Similarly in this case a judge of Korean descent has favoured a Korean company. I have made an observation. I'm sure the real reason is valid, for her to rule with Samsung on the patents, but again, I am entitled to that observation, and it doesn't have to be racist.
/overandout
Veto isn't an accurate term there, in spite of having been reported that way. You can only veto a bill. I'm not sure if he discouraged an injunction there, but I can look it up. What you completely miss (assuming you aren't trolling) is that the judge is American. According to the Wiki pages, she was born in DC. American isn't really a race, but that doesn't matter either. If you were trying to prove something, it would require more than an observation. As it is right now you're just writing libelous nonsense without any evidence or really logical connection.
Let me clear something up, my original comment was light hearted and in a jokingly manner. It's like comment #4 or something, check it out. I apologise if it did not come across that way. I in no way believe she is biased towards Samsung because of her heritage. I am merely defending the point I am not being racist.
Whether you want to look into it in its deepest possible respect and try and look for racism, as I said, I am making a connection between an attribute of a person and a company.
Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the runner up market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
Here is the skinny. Steve Jobs recruited a variety of people to join the of Apple Board. One example is Al Gore who promoted the internet to fellow senators. Others were fellow industry leaders. Example: Bill Gates of Microsoft.
Here is where the story gets darker.
CEO Eric Schmidt CO of Google - the search engine company - joined the Apple board about year 2005, Schmidt was their to witness the development of a revolutionary phone. The iPhone was launched in the middle of year 2007. Schmidt left the board a while later, still Google CEO.
A few years later Google launched a new product – Android – and gave it away for free. Was not a phone but had all the makings of an iPhone.
Currently Samsung is, in fact, the market leader behind iPhone. I am not impressed with Samsung’s success. I know how they got there - with someone else’s idea.
that's just rude.
What is?Apple should investigate if Samsung is padding the pockets of Judge Lucy Koh's family back in Korea. I know first-hand how this stuff works in some parts of the world, it is a common practice to send someone's kids to college or buy someone a nice mansion in the islands.
So Apple copy Samsung Tab 7 with IPad Mini. Blatant to see for all!
Koreans are cool, Samsung not so much
Gangnam style.
Cannot believe all of the racist comments on here. Unbelievable. Apple crazy fanboys have truly reached the limit here.
Yes. This is racist.
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
Next thing we'll hear is that it's "racist" to wonder if the familial ties between judges and attorneys in the Eastern District of Texas patent suits somehow influence the decisions there...
I can see where the comment about one Asian defending fellow "Asians" could be considered ignorant since few Asians see other nationalities as 'fellow' - no love lost between China, Korea, Japan, etc., but ignorance of history and/or geography isn't racism. (A comment about how Oriental judges rulings are as bad as their driving - that would be racist, OK? Until then, please lose the over-PC chip on the shoulder.)
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
It is racist to consider the fact that someone's origin may bias their decisions.
It's like saying "being a Jew makes you a possible danger for all Aryans" : inacceptable, scandalous, and racist.
It is inappropriate, and no amount of insults will change that. Oh, and by the way wuss : a weak or ineffectual person (often used as a general term of abuse).
Abuse. Get the idea?
Seriously? Do you question the judge if he/she was white? No you wouldn't. But if the judge doesn't "look" American , then you start questioning? That's racist.
It's unreal what a bunch of whiny wusses people are nowadays about stuff. There's nothing at all inappropriate about speculating whether somebody's background could influence their decisions. Look up the definition of racism sometime - it's not linked to wondering whether a judge with a particular ancestry could render biased judgements when a trial involves a company from that judges ancestral homeland.
Next thing we'll hear is that it's "racist" to wonder if the familial ties between judges and attorneys in the Eastern District of Texas patent suits somehow influence the decisions there...
I can see where the comment about one Asian defending fellow "Asians" could be considered ignorant since few Asians see other nationalities as 'fellow' - no love lost between China, Korea, Japan, etc., but ignorance of history and/or geography isn't racism. (A comment about how Oriental judges rulings are as bad as their driving - that would be racist, OK? Until then, please lose the over-PC chip on the shoulder.)
They are looking for something to shoehorn into their preconceived notions. It's unlikely that any of them spent have read through court documents or anything of importance. They just see where Apple didn't win something and look for a source of bias that fits their world view. It remains completely idiotic.