|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
It wouldn't be the first trade war instigated from the USA.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
Both parties were awarded points against the other in Korea.
The products banned and money to pay worked out roughly
65% against Apple, 35% against Samsung. the dollar amount
was tens of Ks, the products banned all last year's models,
the market involved maybe 10% max of global market for both.
Korea was a sideshow, but so long as we keep giving nation states
one vote each, then the tally over the worldwide capaign will
be interesting.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
Let me see:
Samsung v Apple in Korea and Samsung is declared to not copy Apple - obviously
Samsung being the local boy can't do wrong.
Apple v Samsung in USA and Samsung is declared to copy Apple - obviously Apple
being the local boy can't do wrong.
1-1. Ok, let's try a "neutral" ground:
In UK Samsung declared not to copy Apple (by Judge Birss).
Hmmm...2-1 against copying AND UK so often seems like 53rd state (perhaps Judge
Birss was biased against Apple for that? Or perhaps he's just got his head
screwed on properly).
Let's have a quick look at a couple of points:
Apple get Samsung sanctioned (by magistrate who refuses to allow Samsung to get
Apple sanctioned) for not keeping evidence when Apple was NOT itself keeping
evidence for longer (ie only started keeping evidence AFTER Samsung) AND they
were the plaintiff and OUGHT to know when litigation would start.
"On appeal, Samsung would likely argue that Judge Koh's ruling to keep
evidence of "prior art"—evidence that designs similar to Apple's
iPhone and iPad existed before Apple got certain patents on those products—out
of the hands of the jury was wrong and that the case should be retried. Early
on in the trial, Samsung strenuously objected to Judge Koh's decision to exclude
evidence it argued proved Apple copied elements of the iPhone from Sony Corp.,
which could have been used to undercut the validity of patents on Apple
designs."
Samsung was denied to bring evidence that suggests that Apple copied in the
first place.
Put the two together and it suggests that it was unfair for judge Koh to not
sanction both Samsung and Apple (harder) for not keeping evidence (pointing out
that Apple had only been keeping evidence from a much later date than Samsung
AND they asked Samsung to be sanctioned for not keeping evidence).
It would have been much fairer for Apple to be sanctioned harder (as Plaintiff)
for not keeping evidence until much after Samsung did as it also then puts
Apple's claim of copying into perspective: Apple was guilty of not keeping
evidence for much longer than Samsung, but yelled loudly that Samsung wasn't
keeping evidence - obviously to distract from their own lack of keeping evidence
- so what can really be made of Apple yelling that Samsung copied it: was Apple
in reality guilty of copying much more in the first place - something the denied
evidence would suggest.
Or perhaps would it be fairer as it would sew so much doubt in to the validity
of Apple's claims that they would not have much chance of winning if it had been
done?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Wonder how the contract reads....since Samsung supplies
Apple's retina displays....and if I were Samsung, I'd stop
supplying my competitors (unless I charged them like
$400/display) :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
