|
| Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
My guess is the judge is doing reseach. Because in truth, he planned this
csrefully, and you see he did his research
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
The first link to the PDF of the quinn declaration should be
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1533.pdf
But is instead the apple response
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1535.pdf
Which is properly repeated shortly after.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
In the paragraph that starts:
But Apple wants sanctions against
Samsung. And that kind of extremism is exactly why Apple's name is ending up mud
with so many of us, and even more so now that Samsung's side of the story is
finally being told. There are two courtrooms in this litigation, one in
California and on in the court of public opinion. Samsung handled the first
by making sure its objection to the judge's refusal to let all the evidence be
heard by the jury.
The italicized sentence is a bit awkward
("making sure ..." is a transitive form, resulting in the sentence feeling
incomplete). Perhaps the word "sure" should be removed.
"Samsung
handled the first by making its objection to the judge's refusal to let all the
evidence be heard by the jury."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: FreeChief on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
| It looks like text, but it acts like there is a very wide picture in the middle
of it.
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
shouldn't "My guess is the judge is doing reseach" be
"My guess is the lawyer is doing research" ?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- s/judge/lawyer - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:56 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
| spellcheckapproved trypo [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
In the Apple response letter, the title of the AllThingsD article is missing the
m in claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
same para as 'as Quinn put is -> as Quinn put it' mentioned
above this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
You say that, "If you recall, Samsung told the court in its trial brief
[PDF], that
Apple has been involved in a "coordinated campaign" of feeding the
media
negative information about Samsung. That's understating it, actually."
The problem is, Apple's complaints mostly have some validity. Samsung's
evidence is mostly known to be false. Consider the following:
First of all, Apple's phone "look" was unique when it came out. Now I
see dozens
of Androids that look so much like iPhone I can't tell them apart without a
close
look. If that look was so obvious, how come no smart phones looked like that
until Apple made one? 
Android: "I passed for iPhone."
Apple: "That's not
allowed."

Second, the supposed Sony drawing was
actually an
Apple drawing of
what a Sony phone "might look like." It was, as such, bogus. It was
not what
Samsung said it was.

Third, the drawings showing that
Samsung
had already
started designs that looked like iPhones were believed to be faked for two
reasons: First, Samsung argued that it had designed phones similar to iPhone
before iPhone was introduced. Had that been the case, they would have
presented drawings months or even years ago to prove their case. But they did
not produce the drawings until the very last minute to get them entered into
evidence. They could not argue that they designed iPhones before Apple did at
trial without the design drawings, so they made some. Samsung's drawings look
suspiciously like drawings Apple provided early on to Samsung for purpose of
Samsung producing some of the chips Apple would use in the
device.

And fourth,
Samsung has been caught lying before on other matters.
In a recent survey, 60 percent of Chinese consumers said they bought their
iPhones because of the way they looked. Only 30 percent cited functionality and
ease of use.

Darned right people who can't afford iPhone
will
buy Android look-
alikes to obtain equal coolness factor.
Samsung contends that it had drawings that looked like iPhones long before
iPhone was introduced. That contention is believed to be false. So are the
drawings offered at the very last minute by Samsung to back up its claims made
months ago. So that would-be evidence has been rejected by the judge.
If Apple hadn't done the iPhone, there wouldn't be any Samsung Android phones.
Android would have been a Blackberry knockoff, which it was at one point,
before Eric Schmidt, then Google's CEO and Apple board member, became aware
of iPhone development. 

Trying to educate Android zealots
is
hard work. So I quit:
This is my last post on this thread.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
You do realize that the "Samsung evidence" that you're talking about
"balancing" the war is in fact wrong and misleading? Samsung is
pointing to
work from 2006, which predates the iPhone release, but postdates Apple's
2005 (and earlier) designs. So it proves... nothing.
And you repeat the ridiculous "suing over rectangles", when Apple
isn't suing
the vast majority of phone makers who also have rectangles. Samsung copied
the rectangle, the color, the beveling, even the shape of the holes next to your
mouth and ear.
Your personal judgement falls far short of your legal judgement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- You do realize - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
|
