Forum Home
PC World Chat

Thread ID: 126400	2012-08-24 23:42:00	Verdict in Apple vs Samsung	GameJunkie (72)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1296910	2012-08-28 05:44:00	So it's ok if only one or two devices look similar. If the rest of their product range looks nothing like anything else they are totally off the hook right?	icow (15313)
1296911	2012-08-28 07:05:00	So it's ok if only one or two devices look similar. If the rest of their product range looks nothing like anything else they are totally off the hook right? Pretty much, it means they "weren't the first", or "prior art" is the legal term I believe. Also in both the images of Galaxy S vs iPhone 3G / 3GS whatever, it never shows the outer fake-chrome in the true light. In real-life it was way brighter and looked REAL similar to the iPhone. Here's a photo I took a wee while back, which again still doesn't do the Galaxy S justice vs the iPhone (It's next to an iPhone 4) 4165	Chilling_Silence (9)
1296912	2012-08-28 07:21:00	Apple is excellent for cider.	R2x1 (4628)
1296913	2012-08-28 07:21:00	Pretty much, it means they "weren't the first", or "prior art" is the legal term I believe. Also in both the images of Galaxy S vs iPhone 3G / 3GS whatever, it never shows the outer fake-chrome in the true light. In real-life it was way brighter and looked REAL similar to the iPhone. Here's a photo I took a wee while back, which again still doesn't do the Galaxy S justice vs the iPhone (It's next to an iPhone 4) 4165All I can say chill is that you are either paying yourself to much, or kids aren't in the near future ;)	plod (107)
1296914	2012-08-28 09:05:00	www.theverge.com A view that differs to my own, and also explains googles development. Worth checking out.	Nick G (16709)
1296915	2012-08-28 20:42:00	Mmm big fan of The Verge! Great article too :-)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1296916	2012-08-28 22:01:00	Apple is excellent for cider. Calvados!:drool	KarameaDave (15222)
1296917	2012-08-29 03:00:00	An interesting read. www.guardian.co.uk	KarameaDave (15222)
1296918	2012-08-29 10:48:00	Apple v. Samsung v. Apple jury foreman: 'It was very exciting' m.androidcentral.com Some interesting tidbits in the comments section ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Personally, I found it concerning when the hostess asked him about the validity of the "rounded corners" patent and his response was "we didn't look at individual patents, but at the design as a whole". He's basically admitting right there that the jury didn't do their job. If they believed that the "design as a whole" violated Apple's patents, but each of those patents should be invalid (or at least enough of them to matter) then the jury's decision should have been very different. By saying "we didn't look at the individual items" he is himself admitting that the jury did not do their job and this verdict should be thrown out entirely. Even when the interviewer brought up the concern of the jurors not reading the 170+ pages of instruction, he never actually said "yes we did". His response was "look. the first thing we did was make sure that everybody understood what was going on." It really sounds like this guy is almost bragging that he pretty much decided the verdict." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When he said prior art and the processor not being the same the interviewer should have said hold on wtf fk are you talking about.. This is why a tech pereon needs to interview this nut job.. Why would he even mention if the Android OS infringed? That wasn't a question he was ever asked in this case Of course if the patent was his he would be pissed and rule against the alleged infringer. How the hell did Samsung let a patent holder on the jury. Its funny too he keeps saying this country..then dude says that they didn't look at any singular aspect.. You have to do that.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ it sounds to me like this idiot made up his own mind, then swayed the rest of the jurors to agree with him. also, he says his "ah-ha moment" was when he realized apple's software can't run on the same cpu androids use....then how in the flying hell can you claim infringement??? That's like saying "you stole my mac OS install disk because you wanted to install it on your windows machine!!!" He knows damn well no standard arm arch will run ios proprietary files, but he still claims infringement??? And then because he's the one with the "tech background" he persuades the jury to agree with them because as he says himself "sometimes they were confused and I had to help them understand the similarities between the two"....so he planted the seed, then led them to agree with them because "he knows what he's talking about" this guy is a giant fking retard!!! They should have gone web crawling and found a bunch of devs to sit on the jury...then we'd have really seen the truth, instead of a bunch of people who, when you turn the phone on say "now how do I make a phone call with this thing?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regarding the 460 patent and prior art: "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa, and that means they're not interchangeable." I thought this guy had tech knowledge? Based on this reasoning there can never be any prior art if it doesn't exist within the same OS as the supposed infringing item. All you have to do to avoid prior art claims is build it for a different OS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Geek4414 (12000)
1296919	2012-08-29 10:53:00	Apple v . Samsung v . Apple jury foreman: 'It was very exciting' . androidcentral . com/apple-v-samsung-v-apple-jury-foreman-it-was-very-exciting" target="_blank">m . androidcentral . com Some interesting tidbits in the comments section ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Personally, I found it concerning when the hostess asked him about the validity of the "rounded corners" patent and his response was "we didn't look at individual patents, but at the design as a whole" . He's basically admitting right there that the jury didn't do their job . If they believed that the "design as a whole" violated Apple's patents, but each of those patents should be invalid (or at least enough of them to matter) then the jury's decision should have been very different . By saying "we didn't look at the individual items" he is himself admitting that the jury did not do their job and this verdict should be thrown out entirely . Even when the interviewer brought up the concern of the jurors not reading the 170+ pages of instruction, he never actually said "yes we did" . His response was "look . the first thing we did was make sure that everybody understood what was going on . " It really sounds like this guy is almost bragging that he pretty much decided the verdict . " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When he said prior art and the processor not being the same the interviewer should have said hold on wtf fk are you talking about . . This is why a tech pereon needs to interview this nut job . . Why would he even mention if the Android OS infringed? That wasn't a question he was ever asked in this case Of course if the patent was his he would be pissed and rule against the alleged infringer . How the hell did Samsung let a patent holder on the jury . Its funny too he keeps saying this country . . then dude says that they didn't look at any singular aspect . . You have to do that . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ it sounds to me like this idiot made up his own mind, then swayed the rest of the jurors to agree with him . also, he says his "ah-ha moment" was when he realized apple's software can't run on the same cpu androids use . . . . then how in the flying hell can you claim infringement??? That's like saying "you stole my mac OS install disk because you wanted to install it on your windows machine!!!" He knows damn well no standard arm arch will run ios proprietary files, but he still claims infringement??? And then because he's the one with the "tech background" he persuades the jury to agree with them because as he says himself "sometimes they were confused and I had to help them understand the similarities between the two" . . . . so he planted the seed, then led them to agree with them because "he knows what he's talking about" this guy is a giant fking retard!!! They should have gone web crawling and found a bunch of devs to sit on the jury . . . then we'd have really seen the truth, instead of a bunch of people who, when you turn the phone on say "now how do I make a phone call with this thing?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regarding the 460 patent and prior art: "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa, and that means they're not interchangeable . " I thought this guy had tech knowledge? Based on this reasoning there can never be any prior art if it doesn't exist within the same OS as the supposed infringing item . All you have to do to avoid prior art claims is build it for a different OS . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blah blah lah	plod (107)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16