|
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
| Please list the mistake in the title of your post [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
| For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Please list the news story's name in the title of the top
post. A link to the news story is also recommended in case it
gets bumped down and is hard to find.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
Did Apple's lawyers learn their trade by watching "Night Court"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
Please list transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ to
find. Please post the html as plain text so PJ can easily
copy it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
Microsoft and apple share a common enemy: anyone who
innovates.
They'd probably applaud apple for this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not necessarily - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: old joe on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
I know you get away with a lot more of this sort of thing in the USA but did
Apple just post an article in which an Apple spokesman attempted to poison the
jury against Samsung by claiming Samsung were guilty of Contempt of Court?
Does that mean Samsung can claim unclean hands or estoppel or something?
Is there any chance that the judge might ban Samsung from introducing the design
history evidence unless Apple introduce it first.
Apple: They copied our stuff!
Samsung: Which details were copied?
Apple: The round corners No I meant the single button No I meant it being black
No I meant the fact that it fits in your hand. Yes that's it.
Samsung: Really that's it? Not much is it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
Tbis really takes the cake. There is a point where an honest plaintiff needs to
tell their lawyers not to lie and slander to win. Apple has clearly passed this
point and failed the honest man test.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: indyandy on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
Page 4:
This Court defers to the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate
judgment that even if Samsung had produced some source code before the Court
ordered deadline, Samsung was hardly in compliance with Judge Grewal’s Order to
produce all source code (including all blue glow source code) by December 31,
2011. Even crediting Samsung’s partial compliance of source code production, it
was not clearly erroneous for Judge Grewal to find that Apple was still
prejudiced by Samsung’s failure to fully comply with Judge Grewal’s order to
produce all source code.
Samsung, when will you learn that that
when asked to supply information you must supply all the
information?
page 7:
Similarly, Samsung’s response to Apple’s
contention interrogatory number 12, which sought disclosure of Samsung’s
theories of anticipation, obviousness, and other grounds of invalidity,
contained 595 prior art references comprising 5,600 pages of documents. It would
have been difficult, if not impossible, for Apple to have known which prior art
references and evidence were intended to support which theory, without Samsung
amending its responses to the contention interrogatories in a timely
manner.
Samsung, when will you learn that when asked to supply
information you cannot just submit everything?
Do try to keep up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Filing 1545 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- Filing 1545 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Samsung can't copy Apple! Apple has a patent on copying. They started by
copying Xerox and BSD so no one else should be able to copy anything.
I can't think of a bigger hypocrite. However, Microsoft competes well in this
area. Other competitors: Oracle, Sony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
I thought MoFo was representing them.
I did not think that MoFo behaved in this manner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MoFo? - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- MoFo? - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:01 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: mexaly on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
I would think that, perhaps, Samsung might use a deft touch on
those hot buttons. Perhaps they might get a nice surprise.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nola on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
Folks - Apple reinvented the cell phone. That much is clear and unambiguous.
By and large, phone before iPhone were half-screen and with keyboards. Samsung
and others were
experimenting with other ideas but nothing came together.
Until iPhone
And then *all* the phones looked like iPhone
I'm not going to participate in a discussion about the specific Apple patents,
or about patents in general,
because that's not really the core issue here. Patents might, unfortunately, be
the center of litigation but
the real issue is that the current IP scheme does not provide a better vehicle.
It should, and *that's*
what's missing from this whole debate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Get over what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: JonCB on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:15 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT
- get over it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Martin on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
If Apple in their opening statements mentioned the F700 was a copy of iphone,
aren't they not open the door for a response?
Martin.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
From:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/02/judge_denies_ap
ples_sanctions_request_following_samsung_rebuttal.html
"In a ruling issued late Thursday in the Apple v. Samsung
trial, Judge Lucy Koh denied an Apple motion filed earlier in
the day which requested the Court hand down sanctions against
Samsung for providing excluded case evidence to the media."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
It's pretty sad when Apple's biggest fans are hoping to win on
"perceived" technicalities. It seems like a fairly tenuous position
to be in.
"Sure, Samsung could blow Apple's case out of the water if they could
present their evidence, but too-bad, so-sad the judge won't allow it."
The problem is, Apple fan-boys, Apple's case is weak anyway, but if they somehow
win in this court, the evidence will be allowed in a higher court.
So, go ahead and whistle as you walk by the graveyard and pin your hopes on
technicalities.
If Apple really had a case, you wouldn't have to rely on technicalities.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
| According to AppleInsider.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
I can see nokia phones with rounded corners as early as 1993
http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/1107/12/nokia_timeline.php[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
WAAAA, teacher, that boy won't give me his lunch money even though I threatened
him...
This is becoming more and more like a school play ground tiff.
A: Waaaaa, he stole my drawing; ban him from school
S: No, I didn't, I did it all by my self
S: I've got these early designs for it
A: Waaaa, it's too late to bring that up now, Teacher don't let him show them to
J here.
T: S, you can't show J them.
S: Here, M, have these early designs you requested.
A: Waaaaa, S has shown his early designs you didn't want J to see to M against
your order and J will get to know all about them (even though J is under orders
from you not to have any contact with M); now you *have* to tell S he stole my
drawing and ban him from school
S: T didn't tell me not to give them to M - in fact M asked for them; talking of
which, what about all this stuff you gave to M bad mouthing me?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
| What is Samsung's ( or Apple's ) approach to making a
scorched earth appeal? By
"scorched Earth" I meanthat if
they decide they need to appeal a ruling, need
to appeal it
*now* and pull out all
stops.
My understanding is that they
first have to file a request
with the judge to file an interlocutory appeal. If
the judge
refuses, then they can file a writ of mandamus with the
Appeals
Court.
Also which court do they file it with? The 9th circuit or
the
CAFC?
Also, what do the parties do if they feel a judge should
recuse
themselves? I know the first step is to ask the
judge, but what happens after
that?
Finally,if a lawyer fails to bring up an argument on a
point even
if he has brought up that point before, is he
allowed to use that argument in
appeals? If they feel the
circumstances change, can they argue the circumstance
change
in appeal if they don't raise it during the trial? What if
the judge
tells them not to argue the point any more, are
they free to raise these issues
in appeal?
Note to fan boys, especially fanboys who cry in bold
about
being called fanboys. These are legal questions which
have definite answers. If
the case law does not exist now,
then whatever the decision is will set a
precedent that the
9th circuit will have to live with forever, or at least
until the SCOTUS over rules them. So arguments like "because
it's unfair to
the God of Apple Steve Jobs" don't cut it.
Ok, now seriously. Most of
these questions should be well
established procedures. Those that are not
established
procedure will set a precedent for the 9th circuit. So
please
stick to the abstract question
OK?
---------------------------------------------------
Mouse
the Lucky Dog, who cannot make an account :( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Move over, Microsoft. Apple is aiming for the gold in this
category, and your record as the worst ever is being
challenged.
Apple already has the distinction of being the target
of an active boycott by the FSF--something that Microsoft, despite all their
shenanigans, has never accomplished.
Granted, this was many years ago,
during the whole look-and-feel lawsuit nonsense. But for those of us who
actually remember history, this whole thing seems strangely familiar. And
people's surprise at Apple's misbehavior seems...surprising.
---
Do
not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
As I see it there are two ways to read Judge Koh's rulings as
far as the prior are Samsung wants to bring in. One is that
she is severely biased against Samsung. The other is that she
doesn't think Apple will win, so she is giving them every
ruling she can. That way they don't have a prayer in appeal.
It seems to me that Occam's razor leads to the later. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
