Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 68
    cicocico Posts: 14member
    Plot twist: they're not and Samsung attorneys still can't tell the difference :D
  • Reply 22 of 68
    darklitedarklite Posts: 229member

    They might as well change it to deprive lawyers of a spurious objection. Replace them with generic devices of no obvious make.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

    Hey, isn't that a Galaxy Tab 10.1, in the top left corner?


    No, I think that's the iPad's home button on the left side?

    (or was that the joke?)

  • Reply 23 of 68

    I love the inventor names given on the sample patent at around 6:40. Walter Plinge and Georgina Spelvin. The first a pseudonym commonly used as a placeholder for an uncast actor, and the second played the lead in The Devil In Miss Jones.

  • Reply 24 of 68

    This is almost as funny as Microsoft Australia... they had employed an advertising agency to publish documents for Microsoft. The ad agency used Macs, but the agency was not allowed to bring a Mac into Microsoft headquarters. All meetings where only to occur within the Ad agencies location.

     

    Really?

     

    Head in the sand does not make something go away. Grow up people.

     

    I wonder how many Microsoft employees used Apple products at home? I'd guess all of them. ;-)

  • Reply 25 of 68
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    In the interests of fairness the video could and should have shown no product that had any reference or connection to the case. Absolutely no need to explain patent law in this way. But there wouldn't be a case if they (Samsung) didn't copy and steal. They also did it with Dyson a vacuum cleaner in the UK recently, they just don't care.
  • Reply 26 of 68
    Samsung would like the jury to feel that nothing of Apple's is patentable, as their business model is to copy Apple innovations closely and quickly.
  • Reply 27 of 68
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    did they show the video on a Samsung TV?

  • Reply 28 of 68
    djkikromedjkikrome Posts: 189member
    wigby 03/29/2014 03:27 PM
    Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)

    The Light bulb is round and you can't patent round objects.
  • Reply 29 of 68
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    they also had Apple II in the video. ;-)

  • Reply 30 of 68
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    That's what happens when you hire a creative agency to produce your video. - you get a lot of product placement that represents the artist's bias.

  • Reply 31 of 68
    Samsung needs to step up to the plate. They need to copy ...uh... invent new computers and request they be added to the video.
  • Reply 32 of 68
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member

    "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.

     

    Isn't that kinda the core of the case - Apple claims that their products are innovative and patentable and Samsung says nuh uh.

     

    Still I would think that the items used in an instructional video should not have been in any way related to any of the product involved in the law suit. For example, when I brother took a course to become a certified trainer for an office electronics dealer the presentation he had to give as part of the course was not allowed to involved any office electronics. By requiring the students to present on a topic not related to the job at hand meant that no one hand an unfair advantage or, for those starting out, did not require any knowledge of the job specific subject - and allowed them instead to draw on something that was personally familiar to them. So in this case they could have used something along the lines of kitchen utensils or furniture maybe. 

     

    Been seeing lots of Samsung Galaxy Pro Note 10 commercials, or is it Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 10, or is it NotePro 10.1, or is it 12? Even though they say the name of the product a number of times in the commercial, when I try to repeat it, it never sounds right. Reminds me of a time my other brother and I decide to say the word abominable snowman in as many incorrect ways as we could, the indomitable snowman, abdominal snowman, etc, after 20 minutes or so we were unable to saw it correctly with any confidence that we were in fact saying to correctly. 

  • Reply 33 of 68
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,502member
    Are those stock photos from the 80s?
  • Reply 34 of 68
    Assholes
  • Reply 35 of 68
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member

    "depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below)"

    What do you mean, "lots of plaid"?! I only see one guy wearing plaid.

     

    See...!! this is just the kind of Anti-plaid bias I've come to expect on this website! Apple didn't invent vertical lines of color interacting with horizontal bands of color!

     

    Just get off your high horse, A.I.!!

  • Reply 36 of 68
    The companies featured in this US Judicial System video, helping to explain the US patent process are US based companies; Dell based in Texas, Microsoft based in Washington, and Apple in California. I think most goverents tend to prefer local brands to international brands.

    Maybe Samsung can get the South Korean government to make their own video that nobody will watch. Which brings up the other point, if Samsung wasn't such a whiny child about this, virtually nobody would have watched this borig video (with exception of people interested in filing a patent). Next thing you know they will be complaining they were left out of McDonald's sexual harassment training videos.
  • Reply 37 of 68
    This is almost as funny as Microsoft Australia... they had employed an advertising agency to publish documents for Microsoft. The ad agency used Macs, but the agency was not allowed to bring a Mac into Microsoft headquarters. All meetings where only to occur within the Ad agencies location.

    That's odd. I used to work at Microsoft as a vendor at the US HQ. My boss made me use a PC, but usually when I went to meetings with all the "real" Microsoft employees, I was the only one who didn't pull out a MacBook Pro... Granted they had to be running Windows on campus, but I am sure they were running OS X at home, else why have a MacBook Pro at all?
  • Reply 38 of 68
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member

    Haaaaaaahahahahahaha!

  • Reply 39 of 68
    Samsung has shamelessly and successfully copied a lot from Apple. I am heavily biased towards Apple on most things because I like their products so much.

    But trials still need to be fair. They always need to be fair, no matter what anyone thinks about the relative merits of the parties. Neither Apple or Samsung should be used as examples in information videos in a trial in which either of them is a party.

    Apple Insider, you are normally pro-Apple but with a clearer attempt at being balanced than most fan sites. In this case you are making a tempest out of a teapot. Meh.
  • Reply 40 of 68
    The fact that this video is necessary shows that this trial should not be decided by a jury. If you have to explain the very basics of the law to the jury at the start, how can you expect them to judge the nuances of the law that will be argued in the case? These disputes should be judged by those who are experts in the field, i.e. a jury of patent clerks.
Sign In or Register to comment.