Judge Suggests Apple Is "Smoking Crack" With Witness List In Samsung Case

infodragon writes "Today in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case Judge Lucy Koh's patience wore thin as Apple presented a 75-page document highlighting 22 witnesses it would like to call in for rebuttal testimony, provided the court had the time. As those following the case closely know quite well, the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin. As quoted by The Verge as they sat in the courtroom listening in, Koh wondered aloud why Apple would offer the list 'when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!'"

Comments

At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Compaqt]

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Rockoon]

Maybe she just doesnt have any tolerance for stupidity. I doint think she would tolerate you for missing it.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

Or smoked a little too much of Apple's icrack.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[xs650]

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[jellomizer]

Yes, Judges become judges so they judge the exciting world of Patent Ownership rights.

She is probably just pissed at the entire case, and trying to do her best to keep fair headed.

Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

Samsung is trying to keep their products innovative and new. And a lot of apples patents are not really as impressive as Apple says.

To be a Judge where you are probably more interested in making sure every one get fair justice. These cases seem like petty bickering over nothing. However there are laws on the books and need to be followed.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Maybe she IS biased towards Apple - and a crackhead, herself!

"You must be smoking crack! (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)"

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[KingSkippus]

She certainly does seem unhinged. I can't imagine that this won't end up being some sort of mistrial and tried again.

Her behavior through this whole trial has disgusted me. This stuff is really damn important. Why are the companies being so limited in the amount of time they can have witnesses on the stand? In such a case with such a long history and of such importance, shouldn't the jury be allowed to hear all evidence that is relevant that the two sides want to produce? I mean, I can understand not want to drag it out over six months, and if the lawyers started putting completely irrelevant witnesses on the stand just to try to filibuster the trial, I can understand her wanting to crack down on them. But this is ridiculous.

At this point, if I were a lawyer for either side, it would be awful hard to care which way this trial goes because it just seems obvious to me that whatever the jury decides is going to be pretty unimportant once this trial is overturned and the next one begins.

It really is starting to strongly sound to me like Judge Koh is more concerned with her own ego and power trip than in being an impartial judge conducting a fair trial.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Insulting someone is a good way to hide collusion with them.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

corporate sycophants are sure good at whining.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I have read, she seemed to be bias in favour of Apple, but she changed her tone to save face when the media called her out on it. I personally don't think this is an appropriate attitude for a judge in a courtroom, and don't believe she is the right person to handle this case. This whole thing has turned into a media circus.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

This stuff is really damn important

Hardly. Even ignoring all the stuff going on in criminal court (where someone's liberty, and sometimes their life, is at stake) and sticking to civil court, the serious cases still concern loss of life and limb, or at least of livelihoods and life savings. This crap about big companies hurling insults back and forth and playing ridiculous games with the system is only serious in so far as it's a fucking disgrace that it's allowed to tie up a system that's designed for more important things. It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the companies being so limited in the amount of time they can have witnesses on the stand?

Two points.

One: this is a jury trial. As such, there are twelve jurors, private citizens like yourself, who have their lives on hold (without pay!) listening to two corporate behemoths whine at each other. Dragging this out for an unreasonable amount of time will create real problems for real people.

Two: Judge Koh has more than just this case on her docket, and it isn't fair to everyone else in her district that Apple v. Samsung take up an unreasonable amount of time and prevent other cases to come to trial.

If you can't present your case with 25 hours of face time before the jury, well, you can go fuck off. The lawyers in this case don't get hired by trillion-dollar multinationals by being tame, they're going to bend any rule they can get away with. The judge needs to present a strong barrier to that.

(Oh, and bonus point: All three parties know that this is going to go to appeal anyway, unless a settlement is reached or something.)

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe she feels that this case is without merit and some outside force played a part in even letting it get this far.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.

No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and when either company loses it won't affect livelihoods and life savings of anyone.

I mean, they've only got CEOs and lawyers working there, right?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thing turned into a media circus because it involve Apple, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with he fact that this judge is a women you sexist asshole.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear to ask this one: What patents could Apple /rightly/ claim for the Mac that they didn't? They got the ideas from a deal with Xerox, and elsewhere. If you're setting those aside, then I'm all ears for what they should have patented but didn't.

(No, really. Not sarcasm. I'm curious to know. Help me out.)

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[shentino]

laws that the patent trolls bought and paid for

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[SomePgmr]

She keeps sending the two parties away with instruction to try to figure something out, away from courtroom antics. They keep coming back like angry children, ready to fight it out. I'm not surprised that she's fed up with it all.

Personally, I'm hoping that Apple gets a nasty slap in the face.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[wonkey_monkey]

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[jeffmeden]

No, both sides have been enormous cunts for the entire trial, and she's pissed at both of them for that reason. It got bad enough that if Samsung loses, they're basically guaranteed a full appeal at this point. Probably the same with Apple. So we're almost certainly going to get to relive all this AGAIN! WEEE!

This. Since almost the beginning, when Samsung's lawyers started lining up evidence for the judge to strike down, this trial was merely a pre-game for the appeal. In big trials like this, appeals are inevitable (unless the process is exhausting enough to make a settlement more appealing), so this move suggests Apple's lawyers are now finishing off with enough material to make the appeal trial that much more interesting.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Lonewolf666]

Reminds me of Judge Jackson in United_States vs. Microsoft. He got so pissed at Microsoft's behavior in court that he said some rather unfriendly things about the company in interviews (see http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/42071).

Which was probably not so smart and might have contributed to his verdict (breaking up Microsoft) being overturned on appeal.
I always wondered why he did not keep his mouth shut and sanction Microsoft's legal team instead. They did some things that might have counted as perjury, such as presenting a faked video as evidence.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Successful troll with sarcastic post is successfull

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

She keeps sending the two parties away with instruction to try to figure something out, away from courtroom antics.

I understand that the overcongested court system wants routine cases to be settled out of court, but settlements set no precedent.
A lot of people really want the law to say, definitively, one way or the other, whether or not one company can force another company to pay for the privilege of making a device with rounded corners.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

Care to explain what on earth would be worthy of a patent in the Macintosh? And I mean of course a patent for an industrial invention, not a design patent. You heard about Xerox PARC, didn't you?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[zzyzyx]

Considering she already handled around 20 cases involving Apple, she's not a very fast learner ...

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's wait and see whether either Apple or Samsung is seriously affected by the outcome of this nonsense, shall we, Oh, wait a minute, I know who might be well placed to make a call on how much of it is serious and how much is crack smoking - the judge.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

To top it off, this all came about because of the cosmetic look of these devices.

This whole court case is happening because Samsung ignored Google when they were warned about the similarity if their device. This really should have just gone to Judge Judy.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[chrb]

It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.

I think you underestimate the seriousness of this issue to these companies. This isn't about tiny license fees. Apple is ultimately aiming for a complete sales ban on most (all?) Samsung smartphones (and then HTC). A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market, and was growing by 200% to 300% every year. They don't talk about market share these days - now they brag about profitability - and the reason is that the iPhone market share is falling, and is down to 32%. The Samsung Galaxy phones are widely popular - UK sales data show the S2 and S3 outselling the iPhone every month except April 2012 - and if you check the "Android fragmentation" graph you will see that Galaxy devices (GT-x) alone comprise a huge proportion of the Android market.

Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5% - will be repeated in the phone and tablet markets. And in a completely free market, that is what would probably happen, since competitors will produce lower price products with similar capabilities and over time erode market share of the dominant manufacturer. Thus the obvious answer is to try and avoid the dangers of the free market by asking the government to stop your competitors from being so competitive.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Em Adespoton]

I wonder if it's possible to sanction ALL the lawyers.... Maybe that would set a precedent that if lawyers are abusing their privilege, they get sanctioned. This might clean up courtoom antics and make going to court much less painful, if the actual lawyers have to be continually responsible for their behaviour.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[UnknowingFool]

Or maybe she was never biased. But people here on Slashdot automatically assumed she was because she ruled against Samsung on a procedural violation.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

Actually, there are quite a few aspects of the Apple operating system that did not come from Xerox:

The Finder and its interface
Drag-and-drop file manipulation, including dropping files onto a trash icon
Drop-down menus
Multiple views of the file system (e.g. icon vs. list)
OS support for drawing into partially obscured windows
Desk accessories
Direct editing of file names
Copying data in multiple formats to the clipboard
Automatic updating of windows when rearranged

However, it is not quite true that Apple did not protect its ideas. At that time, computer software was protected more by copyright than patents, as the court precedents that determined that software features are patentable had not yet been established. Rather, Apple was tricked by Microsoft into licensing the key original features of the Mac operating system to them. In return for developing software for the Mac, Microsoft asked for a license to some features of the Mac GUI, including some of the unique features listed above. Because Microsoft was pursuing a very different approach to a GUI, with data displayed in separate panes of the display rather than in overlapping windows, Jobs apparently felt that their OS was not directly competing with the Mac, and agreed. Microsoft then turned around and released a version of Windows that blatantly copied Apple's approach. Betrayed, Apple sued, arguing "We licensed those features for the original version of Windows, not the one that imitates the Mac." The court reasonably responded, "Well then, you should have specified that int he license," and Apple lost.

But it is probably true that this early experience contributed Apple's modern no-tolerance approach toward companies they perceive as crossing the line that separates competition from copying.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[TheGratefulNet]

when bad behavior has no actual negative consequences, bad behavior continues to exist.

well, DUH!

until there are consequences for waste of time 'I'm gonna sue your ass!' moves, the lunacy will continue.

if, otoh, the lawyers had SKIN in the game (and jail time for when they act like ambulance-chasers that most of them are, anyway) then you'd see real change.

white collar crime usually is just a 'cost of business' and there's no real pain involved. so it won't stop. its a business, in fact!

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

There's nothing particularly unhinged about it. Apple wants to keep its options open about which witnesses to call in the limited time remaining to them, which makes a lot of more paperwork for the court. The judge is irritated because Apple cannot possibly call all of those witnesses, and is insisting that Apple make up its mind in advance.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[TubeSteak]

so this move suggests Apple's lawyers are now finishing off with enough material to make the appeal trial that much more interesting.

If it's not presented at trial (this includes testimony), it doesn't get looked at in the Appeals court.
I don't see how an Appeals judge could send the case back to the original court because rebuttal witnesses could not be called during the alloted time for the trial.
That's not an error of law.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[VortexCortex]

However there are laws on the books and need to be followed.

No. There are laws on the books that SHOLDN'T BE THERE, but without them the Lawyers and Judges (who are also lawyers) wouldn't have jobs.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[SternisheFan]

Oh, I like this judge! Shades of Judge Judy, yeah, I'll accept her ruling.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[the_B0fh]

What?!?! You mean just because she didn't do what you wanted doesn't make her biased against you?! NO WAY!!!!

but yeah - that's how a lot of people think. Remember that idiotic movement to impeach or remove her when she let the trial continue/whatever?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

The jurors are being paid. Not much but they are being paid.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

And just yesterday said judge told the parties it'll have serious consequences and asked them to try and negotiate for the last time before it goes to the jury (they declined).

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Mike Buddha]

Apple NEVER had a huge share of the market in desktop computers. The most they ever commanded was about 15.8% reported in 1980, in the nascent desktop market.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey "gratefulnut", why do you always have to be so insulting to people whenever you reply??? Do you get off later thinking of how you got that zing in? Seriously dude, that's quite a personality deficiency of yours. Hey, I know! Why don't you learn how to disagree with others without being disagreeable? Maybe it's time for you to start growing up some, son.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

All that you just listed are ideas, not actual implementations of ideas and reproducible, non-mathematical, ways of doing it. In other words, the bs that's not supposed to be eligible for patent protection. Try again.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[ackthpt]

in favor of Apple.

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

No, she has just gotten to know Apple better than she did before.

Got to know the ugly side of patent fights and how everyone can be such a poor actor.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Vintermann]

> Drag-and-drop file manipulation, including dropping files onto a trash icon

Yeah, and the user interface brilliance that you had to drag the disk icon to the trashcan to release the disk. There are a whole lot of blind alleys and outright bloopers in Apple's history of "user friendliness" (not least that until OSX, it would crash if you spoke loudly at it).

Some think that overlapping windows was a step backwards from tiling window managers, and it would be better if Microsoft had never followed suit. But, especially today, it seems absurd that anyone should be able to own one of the fundamental window arrangement modes.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

Sumsung is a much larger and older company than Apple, with much more diverse income sources and more than double the revenue. I have no doubt they will be a thorn in Apple's side for years to come, regardless of how many lawyers Apple can afford.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[NatasRevol]

Not sure where this trial is being held, but the first link when googling jury pay in california says $15 per day.

That's less than minimum wage in the 1974 (assuming 8 hr day).

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

The Finder and its interface
Drag-and-drop file manipulation, including dropping files onto a trash icon
Drop-down menus
Multiple views of the file system (e.g. icon vs. list)
OS support for drawing into partially obscured windows
Desk accessories
Direct editing of file names
Copying data in multiple formats to the clipboard
Automatic updating of windows when rearranged

All these are no more than abstract ideas, unless you specify HOW they are implemented technically, and even then they would only be worthy of a patent if the implementation is technically inventive, i.e. no ordinary CS engineer would have figured how to do it using known techniques. And the patent would then have been granted for the specific technical implementation, not the idea. So I stick to my point : no industrial invention; only a possibly clever, elegant, whatever, design in the quasi-artistic sense, and protectable only in part, by some combination of "design patents" and copyright.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

No, as you would have noticed if you'd read more carefully, I pointed out that protection back in those days was based on copyright law, not patent, so the issues you raise were irrelevant. However, based upon subsequent court precedents, it is clear that many of those features would be considered patentable by modern standards. They were, in fact, not merely ideas but based on a specific implementations--you may have heard of them; they were known as the Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh.

As an aside, it is preferable for such features to be protected by patent rather than by copyright, as the term of patent is much shorter than copyright. Any design or technical features patented at that time (if modern rules had applied) would have passed into the public domain quite a few years ago, but any copyrights are still valid. Indeed, the original patent on the mouse had expired by the time the Apple Lisa was introduced.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

All these are no more than abstract ideas, unless you specify HOW they are implemented technically, and even then they would only be worthy of a patent if the implementation is technically inventive, i.e. no ordinary CS engineer would have figured how to do it using known techniques.

I suppose that this is relevant in some wishful-thinking world of how you imagine that patents ought to work, but that is not the standard that modern courts apply. Indeed, requiring that a patent should be the sort of thing that "no ordinary engineer could have figured out how to do using known techniques" is so restrictive that it would have excluded a large percentage of the patents of the early industrial age. And these features were hardly abstract ideas--they were features of actual, physical devices.

I'm amazed that you think copyright protection is preferable. After all, if they had been patented, these features would have long since passed into the public domain, while copyrighted features would still be protected, and would remain so for decades yet to come.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[rsborg]

A few years ago Apple fans were proudly shouting that the iPhone had 70%+ of the smartphone market

[cite needed] The iPhone has never been more than 20-30% of total smartphone sales. See here for a glimpse of 2010 [1] and 2011 [2] numbers - none are are even as high as the 32% you are quoting (from where?). Fact is, Android (particularly Samsung) have replaced Nokia, RIMM and Blackberry, not to mention Windows mobile/phone devices. iOS has never been stronger - and neither has Android.

Apple executives are terrified that what happened with the desktop market - Apple initially gaining huge market share, and then falling to below 5%

Unless you never lived the 80's you know this isn't true - Apple pioneered with their AppleII, but IBM always had the corporate market which they basically gave away to Microsoft due to poor agreements on software licenses. Apple's share has never amounted to a large percentage of computing device sales.

Apple has always been about profits and not marketshare.

[1] http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/16/iphone_drops_to_23_8_smartphone_market_share_android_jumps_to_17.html
[2] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/iphone_and_android_gain_marketshare_through_february/

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[bob zee]

i totally agree with you on all counts. i do think her "smoking crack" is a bit unprofessional. did she really say that? i like it, but i am shocked at the inappropriateness. yes, yes, we are all adults. hahaha. :~)>

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[bob zee]

I was watching a tv show on HDNet and Samsung builds ships! That is very impressive.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

This Apple witness list is a tit-for-tat over what Apple accused Samsung of doing with its' witness list.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[slippyblade]

Jurors get paid $27 a day where I am. Oh - plus a lunch allowance.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

Apple is now swearing to the judge that the really do plan to call all of those witnesses, and that they can manage the time so that they can do it in the time allotted. They will be in trouble with the judge if they list witnesses that they do not call.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[JonySuede]

You should watch The mother of all demos.

The concepts behind the personal computer were crystallized there. The only thing missing from that demo is graphical display of controls, but they have mouse operable buttons, hyperlink navigation, filesystem with hierarchical view, list and collaborative editing. Those stories about Xerox Apple and Microsoft display a blatant lack of historical perspective !

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[insertwackynamehere]

With all due respect, in what world is $27 a day and lunch allowance anywhere near enough to cover the living expenses of an adult who is not salaried but commanding a respectable hourly salary like there is a good chance some of these jurors are?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's marketshare is growing still worldwide: http://www.cultofmac.com/139839/mac-market-share-continues-to-rise-while-pc-shipments-decline-report/

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[slippyblade]

It's not. That's the point of the post - it was in response to the AC seeming to think that the jurors were being paid an acceptable amount.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Technomancer]

Apple is strong on these patents because of apples previous history. They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

You mean competitors like Power Computing?
And by "eaten alive" you mean "Apple Computer bought key assets of Power Computing for $100 million in Apple stock and roughly $10 million in cash"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing#cite_note-3

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that this is relevant in some wishful-thinking world of how you imagine that patents ought to work,

Ought to work, indeed. That's why I used the word "worthy". And I have quite some understanding of how patents work in theory, and in practice, mind you. I was precisely pointing out the ever-widening gap between the law and how patent offices actually do their job.

Indeed, requiring that a patent should be the sort of thing that "no ordinary engineer could have figured out how to do using known techniques" is so restrictive that it would have excluded a large percentage of the patents of the early industrial age.

Yet that is no more than a rephrasing of the law. The "skilled in the art" thing is precisely the crucial criterion that was designed to thwart obvious applications. Again, what many courts, and patent offices, are doing is more and more insane, but to the best of my knowledge, no congressman has yet dared to propose removing the criterion.

An the early industrial age was a very different situation. The system was building up, with many hiccups and blunders, of course, and many things we now regard as obvious were not. That would require a very long explanation.

 

And these features were hardly abstract ideas--they were features of actual, physical devices.

Have you ever read patents from a century ago? I do that routinely, as part of prior art research. Many were intensely vague, and the devices or methods described, even when corresponding to genuine inventions (I mean, that seem to have actually been built, as opposed to ordinary lunatic or raving DIY stuff often found to this day), are often hard to reproduce or figure out. And they can sometimes be a terrible nuisance to today's engineers because they are so vague that they can be interpreted as prior art for recent inventions that couldn't even have been thought of, let alone built, at the time.

I'm amazed that you think copyright protection is preferable.

I do not, not in the way you seem to envision. Copyright can no more protect ideas than patents. Only specific expressions of the Macintosh interface features, more like artwork, would qualify in my view.

Now relax, all this is just typical /. discussion...

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[MBCook]

But you can challenge the judge's ruling that barred the evidence / testimony, asking the appeals court to rule that it should have been allowed in.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[chrb]

The iPhone has never been more than 20-30% of total smartphone sales.

Perhaps, but what I actually said was that Apple fans *claimed* it was higher, and they would link to some page like this as evidence ("If you look at this January 2009 data, The iPhone was actually less than half of a percentage point away from owning 70 percent of the mobile browsing market.") or "iPhone grabbed 72% of smartphone market share in Japan" or "iPad owns 96% of enterprise market and iPhone share climbs to 53%". And even now we are seeing stuff like "Apple's iPhone Has Staged A Monster Comeback, Android Is Now Dead In The Water". Yes, a platform that with almost a million phones being activated every day is apparently now "dead in the water". Those Apple marketing guys are good at getting their message broadcast.

Apple's share has never amounted to a large percentage of computing device sales.

According to this, Apples market share in 1980 was 15%. Okay, that is "huge" on the scale of all PC clones combined, but it beats out the market share of individual manufacturers like Dell and Lenovo today. This article says "In 1984, the Apple II had 15% of the market, Apple's best showing ever. (When combined with the Mac, Apple had over 20% of the market that year.)". The same page says that Apple's low point in 2001 was 2.3%. So from a high of 20% to a low of 2.3%... that's a big fall, losing 88.5% of the market, which was my real point.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[icebraining]

But copyright only matters if you copy the actual bytes, while patents apply even if you implement it from scratch and have never seen the patented invention before. Its reach is much wider and protection against infringing them is much, much more difficult to achieve, since you can infringe without even knowing.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because everyone here gets their information from Groklaw.

Groklaw is a great information source, of course. But it's analysis is completely partisan in favor of 'their' side of the case. So anything that doesn't go 'their' way is because the judge is biased/confused/lazy/whatever.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[jrumney]

It really doesn't matter whether 50 cents worth of your shiny new Samsung toy goes to Apple, or vice versa.

Except that isn't what Apple is asking for. They are asking for $24 of your new Samsung toy, plus 100% of the profit of Samsung's mobile division. If you were Samsung, would you want to settle out of court when that was the offer on the table?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're trying to defend your baseless statements with semantics. Just nut up and say you were wrong.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[oztiks]

Samsung just doubled her bribe that's all :)

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[kelemvor4]

Now I think her wild mood swings must mean she's medicating?

Or smoked a little too much of Apple's icrack.

Watch out for your cornhole. Apple's sure to be after you for using the iCrack brand without express written permission.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[UnknowingFool]

Seriously people here acted like Jack Thompson in that the judge was an enemy because she dared rule against his side. In a normal court case, some rulings might go against you and judges are sticklers for deadlines. Being late isn't an excuse in most things in life.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[guises]

Sumsung is a much larger and older company than Apple

Apple has the largest market cap in the world, four times the size of Samsung's. You could argue that Apple is overvalued and shouldn't be worth that much, but much smaller than Samsung it is not.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[oztiks]

WRONG!

Dood, seriously? GFC? what about superfunds funding future trading options? Apple has had a lot of money poured into it from different places left and right. How much of that was YOUR money! If Samsung loses and because they are not posted on the NASDAQ means that Samsung and their knitted group of shareholders bare the brunt. A company like Apple losses and loses large chunks of value then WE the people have to suffer. It's sick I tell ya!

This case SHOULD end in a Samsung win and yes I agree Samsung did steal. Samsung should win because they did what the market demands and that is be a competitor to a potential monopolistic vendor which in turn means we the users weigh in on the benefits, If it wasn't for Apple bringing out Smartphones and then Samsung making a BETTER Smartphone we wouldn't all have such cool devices sitting on all our desks.

This whole shooting match means

a) users get best of the best product as the two companies have to "out do" each other
b) It's a measure of true capitalism where business reaps the benefits because they have a better product.

I say allow the time proven way of business to play out, GM makes a better car than Ford, then Ford makes a better car than GM. What Apple did with the smartphone revolt is provide us with Electric Flying Cars, Samsung has given us Underwater Electric Flying Cars that can fly to outer space. So, lets keep the momentum of this going moving forward and not allow the courts to kill it.

START:
Apple_please_create_a_new_marketspace()
Samsung_copy_ Apple_but_make_it cheaper_and_better()
GOTO START

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[marcosdumay]

They created the desktop market, how can you claim they never had a big share of it?
When they created the market, they had 100% of it.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples makes nothing other than designs and owns very little other than cash. The whole house of cards (their market cap) can can fall based on a marketing failure of their next product. This is the ONLY reason they need Android and Samsung to fail. Apple is a middle man with a design that is currently in style. They must stay in style to keep it moving. There is NO fall back plan other than spreading out the cash on hand. The stock value is based on maintaining future sales, not capital equipment. Samsung OWNS factories, they design and manufacture things from raw material to end user product very big and very small. Large R&D centers that produce products that just about every company that makes something that uses power uses in their products, ships, earth moving equipment, large industrial power control devices, home appliances, LCD screens, power supplies, chips, dips, chains, and whips.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

I was waiting for the "but but but Market Cap!" fools to chime in. Thanks for the LOL. Apple is a tiny company with a bunch of over-optimistic investors. Yes, you can argue and win on the premise that Apple designs cellphones for other people to make and still others to sell... While Samsung really does everything including making skyscrapers, kitchen sinks, and everything in between. Please enlighten me on how this makes them even comparable to the shiny doodad company from Cupertino.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Mike Buddha]

Newsflash: They didn't create the market, fanboy.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

>But it is probably true that this early experience contributed Apple's modern no-tolerance approach toward companies they perceive as crossing the line that separates competition from copying.

Knight Ridder ... remember that name...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

Reminds me of a funny comment at the bottom of this page ... "Apple sue over copy right"

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Sumsung is a much larger and older company than Apple

Hell, I've never even heard of Sumsung before.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Compaqt]

>Yes, Judges become judges so they judge the exciting world of Patent Ownership rights.

She was a patent (troll) lawyer before donning black robes.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Artifakt]

Which raises the question: Why hasn't Apple integrated vertically, owning more of the hardware process, from chip making to board fabbing to plastic extrusion? Is the barrier to entry for becoming a mini-another-Intel beyond anyone new's ability to surmount, even Apple? Or could Apple have been seriously concerned about a vertical monopoly leading to an antitrust claim? (unlikely, considering Microsoft's own efforts at vertical integration).

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Taco Cowboy]

Maybe she just doesnt have any tolerance for stupidity.

It has nothing to do with intolerance for stupidity
 
It's a case of arrogance on the part of Apple's lawyers submitting 75 pages of paper listing 20 additional witnesses that they (Apple) want to call into the courtroom, while there were only 4 hours left
 
It's a show of sheer arrogance from the side that already know they are going to win the case because they already have the judge in their bag
 
Even after judge Lucy Koh asking him if he's on crack, that arrogant lawyer from Apple, Bill Lee, reply, in his typical arrogant manner, "Your honor, I can assure you, I'm not smoking crack"
 
If you are a lawyer who are not sure of the ultimate outcome of a suit, you wouldn't be replying in such an abrasive manner nor behaving in such arrogant manner
 

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Artifakt]

Perjury in civil cases often has only the penalty of losing or at least helping lose the case. It's pretty usual for the judge not to sanction anyone, but to simply cite the instance in writing the final decision so as to limit grounds for appeal, and it's almost unheard of for a judge to turn the court transcript over to a DA seeking criminal charges. This was a question raised during the Clinton impeachment. Whether President Clinton lied or not, many court watchers were wondering what the relevence of it was, if the lie was about a civil matter not materially connected to High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the case? Would Congress really censure for something outside of the HC&D constitutional clause that was their mandate, and why were they acting so differently from a normal court?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

No. She was so biased early. that Apple figured they could gett away with shit. Like moving to sanction Samsung by instructing the jury they are guilty.
After a while she got one clue and realized that she wasn't looking too good and had to create at least some appearance of balance.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

They made the Apple Macintosh, they didn't file all their patents, and got eaten alive by their competitors.

Are you talking about Xerox?
Of course, back then it was copyrights... you couldn't patent such things.

I only found out yesterday in a similar discussion that Xerox sued Apple over the Mac. I always hear claims that Apple paid Xerox for the rights .. but obviously that must be wrong:
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-24/business/fi-457_1_xerox-corp

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[SQLGuru]

Market Cap is just shares outstanding times stock price. It's just one attempt at measuring how "large" a company is.......and really, once stock is "in the wild", it doesn't really affect the business of the company *.

* By that, I mean that if the stock price goes up or down, it doesn't affect how much money a company has or whether a company sells its products or if a company even turns a profit. Obviously, management is responsible for making sure that the stockholders continue to want to be stockholders.....but the stock itself really represents what the stockholders think the company is going to be worth in the future.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[arose]

GP quite clearly said that the company is larger, not its market cap.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[guises]

Apple is a tiny company with a bunch of over-optimistic investors.

Over-optimistic investors, maybe. "Tiny company" is ridiculous by any standard, in any way you measure it. They have more than sixty thousand employees, they have $100 billion in cash, they have a world-wide retail presence and brand recognition... that's just stupid.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[guises]

Ah, so you're saying that if I bust out the ruler and ask each company to stand still for a few minutes... Er, wait. Do I need a graduated cylinder for this? Yes, obviously that's what you meant. How silly of me.

My measurements show that Apple is 17 ml greater in volume than Samsung. My point stands.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

She is clearly biased (probably even paid for and bought) in favour of Apple, but after all of the talk that she needs to be replaced for being impartial, she's now trying to backpedal. That dumb bitch ain't fooling anyone.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Market cap doesn't mean anything; it's not money. Samsung has enough real assets that they could buy and sell both Apple AND Microsoft.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it fair to everyone who needs to issue or licence a patent in the future that just because Koh's docket is full and she has pms, she destroys the entire patent system? If she can't be bothered to hear the case, she shouldn't have bothered to hear the case.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your pick:

Samsang
Sumsang
Simsung
Somsang
Samsong
Sumsong

and so on, and so forth ....

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[ldobehardcore]

How about: Both Apple and Samsung get nothing since they can't come to an agreement. In other words: Neither Apple, nor Samsung can now use rounded rectangles, glass screens, or shiny black finish. Since you can't play nice or be fair, nobody wins.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

You're kidding. Not even an actual device, but a concept video--and of a pen-based tablet, at that? Many companies, including Apple, built pen-based tablets, but none of them ever sold very well. The iPad was a success precisely because it wasn't that kind of device.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[advocate_one]

The Samsung Galaxy phones are widely popular - UK sales data show the S2 and S3 outselling the iPhone every month except April 2012

and that was ONLY because everybody was waiting for the S3 to hit the shops after having been announced.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Taco Cowboy]

If you do not know judge Lucy Koh, it's time you should know:

Before she was appointed a judge by Hussein Obama, Ms. Lucy Koh worked as a Patent Attorney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh

From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm...50 Shades of Judge Judy

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[metrometro]

> Thus the obvious answer is to try and avoid the dangers of the free market by asking the government to stop your competitors from being so competitive.

Or keep innovating. Or both. Jury's still out.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[oxdas]

Or how about just calling it "Three Stars"?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Kalriath]

No, no, with Groklaw it's anything that doesn't go 'their' way is because Microsoft paid off the judge.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[burning-toast]

However, they do tend to post their reasoning and references behind their assertions... And that is a damn sight better than blind assertions or having to choose faith from authority. Sometimes the judges (being human which also means being biased, low-information, lazy, sick, impatient, etc at times) are indeed wrong or performing poorly. Once they put on the black robe they don't become perfect after all.

I've been impressed with the number of times I would normally have to do a [citation needed] but been pleasantly surprised at the fact that they took the time to dig up old exhibits, get other opinions from lawyers and specialists, list the relevant court documents directly from PACER or otherwise expand on the logic behind their reasoning. It's a very technical discussion of very complicated issues which is oddly and refreshingly accessible to even a lay-person who is not trained in lawyer-fu and doesn't speak legaleze. I would go so far as to assert that if politicians were required to reference all of their assertions at least as well as Groklaw references and explains theirs then politics would be a dead and unnecessary art after a couple of straight forward debates (barring incomprehensible idiots amongst the population who would cut off their nose to spite their face).

To use an example; I could assert that Romney frequently tends to come off as awkward and stiff under public pressure whereas Obama still tends to come off as collected and calm under the same. Some people would disagree with me because of a variety of reasons possibly including that they have political reasons not to like Obama or to speak in favor of Romney. However, a reader asserting bias in my observation is basically showing the bias of the reader themselves. My statements can be evaluated on their face and I could source plenty of incidents of this happening. So, is my assertion fundamentally an opinion at this point? Yes. An opinion which can be backed by examples? Yes. Biased? Not really. Partisan? No.

Groklaw explaining court proceedings works like that, and they do post their opinions and their relevant references inline in the same pieces. You also have access to the raw documents yourself and are free to draw your own conclusions because you have the same information available to you as they do. But you also have to think a little on how well you believe yourself to understand the matters at hand better than they do.

Completely partisan analysis as you assert implies they are hiding, misrepresenting, or otherwise masking information which I have seen no evidence to support. Care to provide examples? I haven't seen any incidence of them failing to back or retract potentially controversial assertions.

- Toast

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

Why hasn't Apple integrated vertically, owning more of the hardware process, from chip making to board fabbing to plastic extrusion?

because there are bigger, older and richer companies (like samsung) already in those markets, so if there is even a chance that apple is worried about competition with samsung in the smartphone market, can you imagine how terrified they would be of competing in markets that samsung has been a dominant player in for years?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have guessed *her* wild mood swings are just an indication that *she* is a she?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes you wonder why apple is trying to piss off everyone under the age of 35.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

Sumsung owns Sony, Universal, Microsoft, Starbucks, United Airlines, Nestle and Google... its CEO is Darth Vader

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[TheRaven64]

Because factories are not actually a good long-term investment. Apple actually does build factories for things like flash chips, but gives them to other companies in exchange for significantly lower prices. After a year or two, the factory is basically obsolete and Apple stops caring, while the manufacturing company can still make some money by selling cheap, lower-capacity flash from a factory that they basically got for free. A few more years later and they have an asset that's worthless and effectively need to build a new factory or, at least, replace all of the equipment inside it, which costs about the same. To make a profit from manufacturing consumer electronics, you need to constantly be investing in new processes or you'll end up with overheads that are much greater than your competitors at best, or be simply unable to build what the customer wants at worst.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[DeathToBill]

Don't forget the billions of dollars also on the books. "Bickering over nothing"? Or "Bickering over $40,000,000,000 per year of market"?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[TheRaven64]

They have more than sixty thousand employees

For reference, Samsung has 220,000 employees.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and the market cap of Facebook is $45b, which means they must be a much stronger and more valuable company than ARM with their measly $8b market cap?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Except their 5% desktop share today is larger than the entire home computer market from back when they had 15% of it. They've never been big on volume, and they've only ever dominated in terms of sheer volume with the iPad and iPod, this is a new concept to them.

Apple has for the past two decades preferred the low-volume/high-margin premium product approach over getting involved in the race to the bottom the rest of the industry is caught up in. They have a majority of the profits on a minority of the volume, why are we pretending like this is a bad thing and that their execs are shitting their pants over it?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[guises]

It means that if someone said that ARM was a much larger company than Facebook, they would be incorrect.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Simon Brooke]

You clearly never worked on either the Xerox Star workstations, or the Xerox AI workstations with which they shared hardware. These had (inter alia)

• Drag and drop file manipulation
• Drop down menus
• Multiple views of the file system (e.g. icon vs. list)
• OS* support for drawing into partially obscured windows
• Direct editing of file names
• Copying data in multiple formats to the clipboard
• Automatic updating of windows when rearranged

Not only did Xerox have prior art on all these things, it is a matter of historical record that Steve Jobs saw that prior art, so there is no possible way he could claim independent invention.

* For some value of. The Dandelion/Dandetiger/Dorado/Daybreak machines didn't really have an OS; InterLISP ran very close to bare metal.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[MightyYar]

TRS-80 was probably the first single company with significant market share. Atari briefly rose to challenge them, along with Apple. Then Commodore and the PC dominated growth until the PC finally dominated everything else in the early 80s.

There's some data here.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

But copyright only matters if you copy the actual bytes, while patents apply even if you implement it from scratch and have never seen the patented invention before.

This is a common misconception, but there is case law, stretching back to Pacman/Muchkin case in the 1980's, that copyright covers the visual representations of computer programs as well as the actual text of the source and object code.

So computer displays may be protected by design patents, which last for 14 years, conventional patents, which last for 20 years, copyright, which lasts for 120 years, or trademark/trade dress, which potentially lasts forever.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[DMUTPeregrine]

Actually, the stock represents what the stockholders think they can convince other stock traders it will be worth in the future, when they themselves think it is worth less than that.

It's all about how much you can con the next guy into buying the stock for, the actual value of the company is just a way to make that more convincing.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Thugthrasher]

Other jobs she had before being appointed a FEDERAL judge by BHO (from the same link):
Superior Court judge as appointed by the Republican governator.
Senior Associate at a different private law firm (doesn't say what types of cases she handled).
Assistant US Attorney.
and more.

So, yes, one of her jobs was working patent cases (note it doesn't say whether she worked cases enforcing patents, defending against alleged infringement, or both), but it wasn't her only job. Congratulations, all you've shown is that this judge has some experience in the type of law she is judging in this case. What was your point?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[UnknowingFool]

My understanding was that Samsung missed a deadline so the judge ruled against them admitting it late. That's it. The evidence would probably have helped Samsung but seeing how it was their own records, there isn't really an excuse for them missing the deadline. Basically the judge was doing her job.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

So the mac was around prior to prduction/shipping of 3.1?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[tgibbs]

Can you provide citation or other evidence? Here is one of many reports that state the contrary. Here's another. Here are descriptions of the Xerox Star and Xerox Alto interfaces that don't seem to illustrate these features. Here's video of the Xerox Star, showing the use of dedicated keys, rather than drop-down menus, to carry out basic operations like copy, move, undo, and text formatting, the use of a "Move" key with point-and-click instead of drag-and-drop to arrange files on the desktop or move files into folders, the use of a "Properties sheet" instead of direct editing to change filenames, the use of a Delete key instead of dragging files to the trash, the use of an "Open" key instead of double-click to open a file, the absence of text selecting by dragging, etc.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[wfolta]

Apples makes nothing other than designs and owns very little other than cash. The whole house of cards (their market cap) can can fall based on a marketing failure of their next product. This is the ONLY reason they need Android and Samsung to fail. Apple is a middle man with a design that is currently in style.

I think this should get the award for the most over-simplified statement on Slashdot.

Just looking at phones alone, Samsung and other manufacturers spent years subjecting us to their own piss-poor designs and the purposeful mis-designs of the carriers. (To trick us into using up data minutes, etc.) Apple came a long and with nothing but a "design that is currently in style" gave us a look at phones that worked for us instead of against us.

I wonder if a cure for cancer would just be a "design that's currently in style" to you as well?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[wfolta]

You've evidently heard of Xerox PARC, but haven't actually researched it. As has already been mentioned in this thread, Apple took a restricted interface and generalized and improved it in a whole bunch of directions that aren't simply "style". In terms of hardware, they managed to shrink the machine down to fit on a desktop, not even require a fan, and cost way less than anything Xerox made while having much more functionality. I believe they also were the first to use rubber for the mouse ball, rather than metal, which improved performance and cost, and they went with a one-button mouse rather than a three-button mouse which made it easier for non-computer-programmers to use.

Heck, their software design to fill multiple overlapping and non-contiguous areas of the screen revolutionized GUIs all by itself, and certainly influenced the development of graphics from then on.

So, yeah, Apple did a lot more than make attractive machines and GUIs.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[wfolta]

You do realize that both Apple (once) and the judge (twice) told Samsung that this trial should be split into two parts because cramming two trials into one would result in running out of time? You do realize that the disallowed evidence that Samsung sent to the press was submitted two weeks after the deadline (after a year of preparation), which would have further delayed and extended the trial? You do realize that Samsung spent too much time cross-examining Apple's witnesses rather than presenting their own?

It's Samsung that's caused this mess, so perhaps you should assign some blame to them?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[savuporo]

Actually. Solomonian solution would permit both of them to have 2 rounded corners, and gray finish.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Among the professions garnering the least respect in this
country are lawyers and politicians. Why is it that, when
you combine the professions, they put on a robe and
suddenly join the ranks of the most respected?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[JTsyo]

Or cut the baby in half. Apple can create the right side and Samsung the left side. Consumers get some awkward looking phones.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Slime-dogg]

That's a factor of less than 4, but considering that Samsung has a presence in so many more markets, this is not a special statistic. If anything, it shows that Apple, within one market, manages to be 25% of the size of Samsung, across all markets.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

except in Samsung's case, the Flash Chip Division chief simply dials the extension for the Factory Division chief and puts in an order for a new factory filled with new equipment from the New Factory Equipment Division... it still costs Samsung money, but nowhere near as much as purchasing everything from separate companies

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

Apple came a long and with nothing but a "design that is currently in style" gave us a look at phones that worked for us instead of against us

it works as long as you don't have a problem with purchasing everything through itunes and don't mind not having access to much else... apple being the good philanthropic corporate citizen that it is... its not like they want your money or anything

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

apple isn't a "tiny" company... some people get a bit overzealous about all this stuff, but in all fairness apple doesn't only compete in one market... apple is into laptop and desktop computers, operating systems and other software, and personal music players...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#Current_products
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_software

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[crutchy]

Apple is 17 ml greater in volume than Samsung

did you measure the size of the gap between the labia of the female employees? because assuming flat will result in a bias towards the company with more female workers

maybe your head is 17 ml greater volume than samsung

btw, volume (space) is generally measured using a unit of distance cubed (such as cm3), while ml is generally reserved for fluid volume... are you talking about volume of blood+water in their employees?

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[guises]

are you talking about volume of blood+water in their employees?

Sure.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[MikeBabcock]

Sounds inefficient to me.

If I said my local computer company only deals with screens and has 300 employees and yours handles databases and networks and firewalls (successfully) with 100, that doesn't make me better.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[cheekyboy]

truth is first above any procedural properness, come on.

Imagine if at Nureburg , half the nazis were let of free, because it took too long to search the old records in the burnt out offices.

"Doing your job" is the old Nazi excuse of 'just following orders, im innocent' crap.

This isnt a small civil case worth $2000, its worth billions of dollars.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[Anonymous Coward]

After personally working for the company, I can say I disagree with you largely. Every retail store is designed and put in place to expose more customers to OS X, and try and drag people away from Windows. Remember the snarky commercials?

I worked in their retail for a few months, at every meeting they talk about market share as their main goal, to get more people on mac above all else. Apple, as soon as the retail stores opened, have been about converting the user.

Re:At first I thought the Judge was biased

[UnknowingFool]

Please. Without rules and deadlines, court cases become chaotic. Let me ask you this: so the IRS allows you to file your taxes whenever you want or do you have to file something by tax day. What about your employer. They can pay you whenver they want or do they have to follow deadlines. Everything in life has deadlines. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you can ignore them.

[sarcasm]And yes this case is exactly like the Nazi war crimes in scope and seriousness.[/sarcasm]

Let me ask you also if you were in favor of the judges in the SCO v IBM case ruling against SCO when they failed to meet deadlines. If you were in favor in those cases but not in Apple's case, is bias clouding your judgement.

Please ignore...

[infodragon]

Posting to remove ability to mod story I submitted.

Re:Please ignore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain.

Re:Please ignore...

[cpu6502]

>>>Posting to remove ability to mod story I submitted.

Bullshit. If you don't want to mod your own story, just don't mod it. It's that simple dummy.

As for apple "smoking crak" I'm not sure why this is news. Apple's bigest fans are non-computer artistic types, and all artists experiment with mind-enhancing drugs for an extra boost of creativity.

Re:Please ignore...

[infodragon]

LMAO. I checked /. before I left for work and didn't want to be tempted. I feel it was a mater of personal integrity not to mod posts in a story I submitted. I knew I would be tempted so I posted just before I hit the highway. It's better to remove temptation before you act and personally I try to conduct myself in manners of personal integrity no matter how big or small. Funny thing is I work in the financial industry and many of my peers would see this shameful, apparently so do many on /.

Re:Please ignore...

[Grave]

Integrity? On the Internet?

You must be new here...

Re:Please ignore...

[Rockoon]

Sounds like an all-life integrity. Hell, he might even be intellectually honest.

Re:Please ignore...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, are you smoking, crack??!! :)

Re:Please ignore...

[sleigher]

So you're that guy I have been hearing about. I thought it was a big joke really but I guess not...

Re:Please ignore...

[Dunbal]

Integrity on the internet. LOL. Good one.

ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

if i have ten hrs to do something and you know it, your saying im smoking drugs or medicating for getting irritated?

seriously the judge is just making sure apple knows to put the best evidence forth in the time everyone agreed on.

The testimony of GoatButtFart

[For a Free Internet]

Gentlemen and Lady:

I greet you in the name of goatbuttfart!

Once upon a time, there was a woman named Iñira who lived near Cxapultepec. She had three daughters who were all super duper astronaut scientist geniuses who became the first president of Mexico.

Then there was a goat that chewed off the rope tying it to the barn door, the old goat got outand blew out such a monumental fart that people all around thought the ancient volcano was erupting and it was the end of the world. Luckily it wasn'tbut damn did it stink for a while!

Well goodbye everyone, have a great weekend, etc. APPLE!

court strategy for jury

[RichMan]

This is infront of a jury.
"We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony"
"They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method.
And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

Re:court strategy for jury

[Mindcontrolled]

I'd say it's part of due diligence to rather provide too many witnesses than too few. Besides, if I was involved in a case with a judge making such an utterly unprofessional comment, I'd sure as hell challenge him for prejudice.

Re:court strategy for jury

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Objection! Your honor, we at Apple strongly prefer insufflation of powder cocaine to smoking crack!

Re:court strategy for jury

[Mindcontrolled]

Nice work. I see the outlines of the motion right there :D

Re:court strategy for jury

[ukemike]

This is infront of a jury. "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony" "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method. And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

Re:court strategy for jury

[DragonWriter]

If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)

Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.

Re:court strategy for jury

[VortexCortex]

Objection! The prosecution is trying to win undue sympathy from the Californian Jurors! We demand a recess to urinanalyse proof of our own cannabis consumption!

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for pointing that out. People forget or simply don't understand that in a jury trial the judge acts as the finder of law and the jury acts as the finder of fact. Deciding what evidence can be presented to a jury (admissable) is decided by a judge and, as you point out, done so out of sight and sound of the jury to remove the possibility of unadmitted evidence influencing the verdict. Deciding what presented evidence is true and believable and what is not is up to the jury.

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

Objection! Your honor, we at Apple strongly prefer insufflation of powder cocaine to smoking crack!

Given Apple's ex-CEO, perhaps the drug of choice is LSD (think differently)
I can see how that might change your perspective on causality enough to think you can call 22 witnesses in the given amount of time...

Re:court strategy for jury

[Darinbob]

This is Apple. They're not hopped up on crack, they're just like that normally.

To channel John Denver here: Cupertino Hii-iigh, California..

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd sure as hell challenge him for prejudice."
Denied, and you're tweaking.

But the Saturn Lady is a bit bored out of her mind isn't she?

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh My God! Someone who knows something about a how a Court works. What are you doing here?!

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony

Distributing a proper amount of crack in the ventilation of the court house make testimonies go faster.

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know what's the difference between the coke Timmy snorts and what you snort?

1.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/flesh-eating-cocaine-laced-veterinary-drug-levamisole/story?id=13902353#.UC17zUTjosk
"The drug, used to deworm cattle, pigs and sheep, can rot the skin off noses, ears and cheeks. And over 80 percent of the country's coke supply contains it."

Timmy's is clean and far purer than most pharmaceuticals.

2.

The police will come after you for your stash of crack, hold a gun to your face, toss your house and impound your car and then charge you with drug possession
and quiet possibly even with the intent to distribute for a few grams. While the stuff does give you paranoia even after only a few doses, your fears are well founded.

Timmy can snort all he wants at a certain house in San Fernando Valley where the pre-teen and teenage sex-kittens are kept. Now what do you think happens
if you're caught with a little sex-kitten you snuffed and what happens to Timmy if he's caught.

Right. There are favored slaves who get away with anything and then there's you, cattle.

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

so shes a little rough around the edges. She'll be fine when they just round some corners off!

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)

Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.

If the judge explicitly told the lawyer in question "This evidence is OUT and may not be shown" and the lawyer brings it out anyways I'm pretty sure that's a breach of a previous specific order. Judges tend to take that sort of thing seriously, if not outright personally.

Re:court strategy for jury

[poofmeisterp]

Objection! Your honor, we at Apple strongly prefer insufflation of powder cocaine to smoking crack!

Now if only you had taken 4 hours to state that one sentence..... ;)

Re:court strategy for jury

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, if I was involved in a case with a judge making such an utterly unprofessional comment, I'd sure as hell challenge him for prejudice.

Judges are the people in a case who are there to keep things real. Calling lawyers out on dodgy tactics is part of their job. They are the king/queen of the court room and can pretty much say or do as they please. Lawyers need to be reminded of this constantly and if they refuse to listen, they get yelled at like children. It's to make a point and in her case it was likely to make sure the point was made public. She probably has better control over the lawyers now than she had before she said it.

Re:court strategy for jury

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Especially if the long list was for witnesses capable of providing testimony. This way Samsung lawyers are properly notified and Apple wouldn't have any additional procedural hurdles that would otherwise prevent them from calling a witness during the limited time allowed by the judge.

I agree this makes the judge appear unprofessional. Of course, you don't have to be a professional to be a judge.

Meanwhile, in Texas.

[Anonymous Coward]

...another patent case is brewing.

The Reality Distortion Field

[matty619]

Apparently died with Steve.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Un pobre guey]

You're probably right, or so I hope. Apple was smoking crack to file this case at all. "Rectangular design with rounded corners" indeed.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[mclaincausey]

C'mon. Trade dress. It's a sum of may parts that may sound ridiculous individually. Samsung even copied the packaging and the freaking charger here.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[LordLucless]

What parts, exactly? Have a look at their design patent. There are not many parts described there. At beast it's "flat with a lightly curved back", "rounded corners", "placement of a single button", "placement of ports".

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Mike Buddha]

Wait, is that their crack pipe design you're describing? I can't tell from those phrases.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[HapSlappy_2222]

Hmm.

A beast with a lightly curved back, rounded corners, placement of a single [easy to touch] button, and [desirable] placement of ports? Sexy, indeed.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and fuck your packaging. Apple copied the Diamond Touch, the fucking technology that was developed by Mitsubishi. And all you fucking care about is fucking rectangle and fucking packaging.

Fuck you and fuck apple

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Dunbal]

If you think there's a single button you are doing it wrong...

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

> Trade dress

I know Apple likes to forge new word which makes no sense. It doesn't mean we have to pretend they do or use them.
Trade dress means nothing or more exactly it's so broad it can mean anything.
No, can we stick to words which actually signify something ?

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if troll or Google-impaired

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[HapSlappy_2222]

Well, there's one button you REALLY go after (sometimes my nose gets sore, and the bottom of my tongue gets rubbed a little raw) but the other button is pretty fun to track down, too.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Dunbal]

This is how it's done.

Lack of judicial temperament

[JDG1980]

One thing is very clear from what we know of this case: Judge Lucy Koh lacks appropriate judicial temperament. A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this. Furthermore, she seems to be jumping on any possible pretext to exclude as much evidence as possible from both sides. This is unusual, especially in a civil case. Frankly, I think she just doesn't want to hear the case at all, and wishes the parties would come to a settlement. In other words, she'd rather not do her job. Maybe we should grant that wish, and impeach her for violating the Article III requirement of "good behavior".

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Hatta]

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[medv4380]

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Interesting choice of words. So you'd be ok with it if it was just one sided berating? Judges have done far worse to lawyers when they start resorting to court room theatrics like Apple and Samsung. Berating both sides just shows fairness, and that both sides are being asses.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Antipater]

Calling someone out on their (procedural) bullshit is part of a judge's job. It's not her fault both sides are doing it, and she'd be negligent if she didn't hassle or berate them for intentionally wasting the court's time.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing is very clear from what we know of this case: Judge Lucy Koh lacks appropriate judicial temperament. A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this. Furthermore, she seems to be jumping on any possible pretext to exclude as much evidence as possible from both sides. This is unusual, especially in a civil case. Frankly, I think she just doesn't want to hear the case at all, and wishes the parties would come to a settlement. In other words, she'd rather not do her job. Maybe we should grant that wish, and impeach her for violating the Article III requirement of "good behavior".

A LOT of judges have been coming out against all these patent cases. It uses up court time, and they understand it is just companies trying to get the upper hand on each other.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Un pobre guey]

IMHO Compelling both parties to reach a settlement as soon as possible is probably best for everyone.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Assmasher]

Well, perhaps she should treat them like children.

When my kids are a pain, annoying, or just outright bad - I don't berate or hassle them, I *punish* them. She should do the same.

Put counsel in the corner (one minute for every year of their age.)

That might work :).

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[cowboy76Spain]

The judge should keep his head and language cool, so neither of the parties can argue that they were unjustly treated and ask for a mistrial. It is like you bark back at a rude customer, it makes difficult to prove that you were right.

If the judge finds one or both sides deserve it, then he can present charges of "contempt of the court" or whatever fits. The judge is not at the court to get personal satisfaction, but to do his work.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[shentino]

Make the losers pay for the winner's legal bills and a lot of the meritless crap won't even be around to clog the courts in the first place. For there would be a strong incentive not to waste the court's time on a bullshit case.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[gpmanrpi]

Firstly, IAAL. Secondly, judges are people. There is no "one" appropriate judicial temperament. While, I think she has made one bad decision on exclusion of evidence during discovery, she has not acted any differently than many judges I have encountered during my practice. Some of them were good jurists, others were arbitrary and capricious. She does not seem to be arbitrary or capricious. Discovery is always a thorny process in the Federal system. There are some strict rules, and there is incentive to hide things as well. Now to the issue of the day. Let's pretend you were a judge, and you had just presided over a multi-day proceeding regarding the claims of these two litigants, only to hear that a litigant wants to call 75 witnesses, significantly more than they have called during the trial proper, in rebuttal. It is ludicrous. When one is scheduling a multi-day trial one, generally has to move significant other trials around. It delays proceedings for _Thousands_ of cases. When a party wants to call 75 witnesses, you have to estimate 1-2 hours per witness minimum. With about 6 real good hours of trial a day possible, that is 25 days of trial at the absolute minum. I think "are you smoking crack" is a proper measured response, considering that you have basically ruined your trial calendar for a year minimum to make up for that. If I were the presiding judge, I may have responded by saying, "You can put 75 on there but if even one is cumulative there will be sanctions: including attorney's fees, costs, etc. and a letter to your relevant State and Federal Bars." If I felt that the parties have been wasting the court's time, "Are you smoking crack?" would be the least of what they might hear, while I consider dismissing their claims by sua sponte summary judgment or JNOV.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[hey]

I don't know what you mean... Judge Judy does that.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.

It's not her fault she'd rather kick the lawyers on both sides in the nuts. Repeatedly and hard. Some of us might even help.

After recovering from a few good hard nut-flattening kicks, they'd presumably be a little bit more inclined to avoid the court, even against their masters' shrieked instructions.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

And then, when a corporation can afford millions in lawyers and an injured consumer can afford next to nothing in comparison, nobody will be willing to sue. Because, if you lose, you'll owe the company that injured you millions on top of the initial injury. And the corporation, with the huge legal team, has a better chance of winning.

That only works when both sides, at the beginning of the suit, are of equal financial standing. Which is the rare case in our legal system. It sounds great on the face of it, but it's just a straw man that isn't worth the straw it's built out of.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she's gunning for her own show like Judge Judy.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Mindcontrolled]

Patent engineers and attorneys also are people. If I would make a comment regarding the judge smoking crack in an ongoing trial, I'd get my ass kicked. Hard. Not working in the US, though, so perhaps that is customary over there together with the weird legal folklore of having patent cases decided by juries.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[amRadioHed]

I disagree. Invalidating as many patents as possible is best for everyone. A settlement just means Apple can sue someone else for the same stuff.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

Put counsel in the corner (one minute for every year of their age.)

That would punish Apple and Samsung but it would encourage the lawyers to do more of the same. Those minutes are being paid for.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[triffid_98]

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Really? I think a great many legal issues could be solved if judges would just look over the case, decide it doesn't have merit and tell the prosecutor to GTFO out of here before I hold you in contempt.

Just think about the lawsuits that generated things like "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly" on Superman underwear...or (due to the McDonalds lawsuit) coffee cups everywhere stating "Warning: Contents Hot"

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[jxander]

Only further supports my crazy conspiracy theory from two weeks ago

Judge is intentionally dragging this out, and ensuring both sides have plenty of ammo for appeals. My unfounded conjecture is that she's getting kickbacks from both Apple and Sony. Additionally, she could be sharing a bit of profit from the lawyers involved, who will be employed for a long time, including the many MANY appeals that are sure to stem from this case.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Em Adespoton]

The judge should keep his head and language cool, so neither of the parties can argue that they were unjustly treated and ask for a mistrial. It is like you bark back at a rude customer, it makes difficult to prove that you were right.

If the judge finds one or both sides deserve it, then he can present charges of "contempt of the court" or whatever fits. The judge is not at the court to get personal satisfaction, but to do his work.

She should really go after the lawyers and ignore the actual parties involved altogether. If the parties argue that they were unjustly treated in this case, they can sue their lawyers.

I do wish that more separation of counsel and client was to be had in the courtroom. If lawyers were penalized for misrepresentation (possibly even with jail time), we'd have more honest lawyers. There's a difference between defending a client you know to be guilty to the best of your ability, and attempting to game the court system to ensure your client wins, no matter the cost to all involved. A good lawyer should be able to keep most cases out of court altogether (but this doesn't make them as much money).

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[casings]

So tell us all about your vast experience that informs your scholarly opinion.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[jforr]

You work for Apple or Samsung?

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be that ridiculous patent cases like these waste time and taxpayers' money and the case isn't worth being heard. Apple got broad overreaching patents that should be invalidated based on prior art and Samsung saw they had some good ideas based on that prior art and copied those to make a competitive product.

Either way they're all a bunch of fucking yo-yos wasting money on a lengthy court trial that the judge should have the authority to throw the hell out but does not. To quote a certain Master Shake: "You're both yo-yos. Shut up ya yo-yos."

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

the McDonalds lawsuit bs needs to die. Read about the actual court documents and outcomes not just the headlines. This is exactly like this court case. Too much headline crap and people already have their mind made up before even getting to the real issue.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[DaveGod]

Has your sig been this appropriate before?

On second thoughts, probably every time.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Mike Buddha]

She needs to send them out to find her a switch. And if it ain't big enough, she's going to find herself a switch, in which case they're both gonna get they're hides tanned!

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Assmasher]

Lol... "You better pick one thick enough - 'cause if I have to go out and pick it, you're gunna regret it..."

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[shentino]

Equalling financial standing is what charities like the EFF are for.

Funny thing is that they will be able to reuse their legal budget once the defeated corporation has paid up for legal expenses.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Judy also tends to ignore evidence and go with her gut feeling.

Judge Judy is the worst "judge" ever.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Un pobre guey]

I agree with you, I meant this specific case. Although given Samsung's recent arguments, invalidating the whole thing should be on the table. USPTO needs to 1) process claims much faster, 2) reject all but a precious few that actually describe specific, narrowly defined original inventions. The narrower and more specific, the better. It might be hard to create and maintain the guidelines, though. Amazon's one button buy patent sounds as if any book on HTML would be prior art, but how do you make such things into policy as technologies appear and become widely disseminated?

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Un pobre guey]

Just try deliberately offending a US judge during a trial in which you are a litigant. Go on. I dare you. I double dare you.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[mdfst13]

And if you win, then the corporation has to pay your legal costs. It cuts both ways. If your case has merit, you are better off bringing it in a loser pays jurisdiction (like Europe). If your opponent's case does not have merit, you are better off if they bring it in loser pays jurisdiction. If your case lacks merit, you are better off under the American rule. In the US, a big corporation that can afford millions in lawyers can sue you, drag you through a meritless case, and then you have to sue them if you want your legal costs back.

I'm also not convinced that big corporations have better lawyers. Corporate defense lawyers get paid a salary. Consumer injury lawyers get paid commission. Better lawyers will tend to gravitate towards the consumer injury jobs, as they pay better. Corporations lose court cases all the time.

It's also worth noting that loser pays is generally not automatic. It's not like you lose and get a bill. If you lose, your opponent presents costs to the court and explains why they think that you should pay them. The court can then evaluate the costs, determine if they are reasonable, and either order you to pay them or not.

Loser pays is the normal rule. The US is an exception in not following it. The rest of the world somehow manages to get by with it. The US could too.

More discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney's_fee#Which_party_pays

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[gpmanrpi]

Slight edit. 22 witnesses x 2 hours / 6 hours per day = 7.5 days of trial. That is only slightly less ridiculous. That would mean either delaying the trial for a long time to get a block available, or doing it piece meal with Apple and Samsung standing on-call. On-call trials rarely happen. With some of the additional information regarding the 4 hours left of actually blocked off time for Apple, it is still ridiculous.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Eskarel]

The problem is that winning and your case having merit are not synonymous, not in the US, and not in Europe either. You can have a legitimate grievance against someone, sue them, be in the right in every way, and still lose. This goes doubly if the party you are suing is a multinational corporation and has a legal team either in house or on retainer.

Loser pays is a shitty system unless it's tempered by the involvement of a judge to apply it only to cases without merit(which should actually be tossed out not paid for). The legal system is already heavily biased in favor of the people who know how to play the game, we don't want to make it any worse.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is just trying to change the game of the mobile landscape. They don't want to pay FRAND more than peanuts, and license their "look and feel" patents very expensively to competitors. This would essentially make them earn money heads over heels for both their own and everybody elses smartphone, without paying for the real innovation that was done before Apple.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[silentcoder]

The only way to have a fair justice system is to take capitalism out of the courtroom.
That means set fixed hourly rates for lawyers and limit them legally to one-per-customer.

Yes, even if you're a billionaire you get ONE lawyer and they all cost the same so the poor guy whose life you ruined and is now suing you can afford one just as good as the one you got.

Will this have downsides ? Well I'm not so sure. The old "what would motivate you to be a better X" argument doesn't hold up well here, if what motivates you to be a "better lawyer" is "making more money" then you're in the job for the wrong reason to begin with.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Jesus_666]

German law has the concept of fining X days' earnings. Just apply that. If the judge finds the lawsuit to be without merit, the plaintiff is fined, let's see... a week's earnings. An individual person won't like it but they can stomach the loss. A corporation will also live but they now have angry shareholders who'd like to know whether losing those heaps of money was really neccessary.

And no, the corporations can't decide how much money that're making; the judge does. Hollywood accounting wouldn't fly. "We make a lot of money but don't have any" (used by a shell company) wouldn't fly either; then the proper course of action would be to seize the company's assets, which would be great fun in the case of a patent shell company.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Quila]

Her loyalty is to the entire justice system. Cases like this are notorious for dragging on forever as multi-billion dollar corporations pump tons of money into them. The judge is trying to prevent that by keeping hard deadlines and tight schedules, no tolerance for the games that normally occur. The comments to that end may be colorful, but this country has a long history of judges with colorful comments.

As far as settlement, that is in the best interests of justice. Where one can be reached, it stops utilizing our crowded court system's resources. Where a settlement could be reached but won't because the sides are acting like spoiled brats, it wastes the court system's resources.

Re:Lack of judicial temperament

[Khyber]

Done it, twice. Still 'won.' Once for EA, the second time for my most recent eviction hearing, and in that one I offended both judge and plaintiff in the same fell swoop, in front of a commission, with hard backing of State and Federal Law quotes.

Tact - it's a quality you must possess if you wish to be a dick and get away with it.

Best Judge ever!!!

[zixxt]

I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.

She needs her own show on TV.

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[tlhIngan]

I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.

She doesn't take ANYONE's crap.

Or did you forget that Samsung was prevented from entering the F700 into evidence and a few other things?

Curious how that is - the same judge rules against Samsung and people are going 'BIASED! Samsung must appeal!" and now that it's Apple's turn to get smacked, they're going "She's awesome!"

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[walterbyrd]

> She doesn't take ANYONE's crap.
> Or did you forget that Samsung was prevented from entering the F700 into evidence and a few other things?

How would that be taking crap?

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[whisper_jeff]

I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.

Ironic given just a week ago people on Slashdot were raging that she was bought and paid for by Apple because she wasn't taking any of Samsung's bullshit.

Maybe, and this is just a theory, she's an unbiased judge who isn't interested in taking bullshit from anyone's lawyers...

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious how that is - the same judge rules against Samsung and people are going 'BIASED! Samsung must appeal!" and now that it's Apple's turn to get smacked, they're going "She's awesome!"

Not curious at all. Slashdot is full of product developer and anyone who is reasonably competent in the field understands that this is just Apple being dicks and that they should have been thrown out of court waaaay before this farce even hit the news.
When Apple shows up with 22 witnesses the judge asks if they are smoking crack because she have a good understanding of how the court works and in this case she understood that Apple are trying to abuse the system by bringing attention to witnesses they know will not be questioned.
People here are hating on Apple because that is the right thing to do in this case.

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that Samsung admitted this evidence late, hence, it was not allowed - which is fairly common practice.
I have my doubts about this judge - mainly because she (supposedly) declared the IP claims as valid - and they are obviously a big joke (on both sides).

IMHO, the Knight Ridder "evidence" (assuming its true) has left Apple with a lot of egg on its face - they should be embarrassed and ashamed for patenting someone else's "style"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

If this judge is worth anything, she will serve a harsh punishment on both sides - it's the only thing that will send the message to both sides. It's one BIG circus.

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the judge is clearly unbiased by evidence, given that she's not allowing exhibits or time to examine them in her courtroom. Some would say she's an impartial, incompetent megalomaniac.

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[squiggleslash]

She's basically prevented Samsung from presenting a defense, so, no, she's pretty awful.

(And no, I don't care about arguments about whether Samsung did or didn't conform to arbitrary deadlines to submit evidence against clearly false claims that Apple had already submitted - if you are presiding over a case, and one of the parties cannot present their legitimate case due to procedures and rules you are responsible for, you fucked up.)

Re:Best Judge ever!!!

[Quila]

How would that be taking crap?

Samsung had their chance to enter it into evidence, but decided to wait until after the deadline. Allowing Samsung's crap would have dragged-on the trial, messing with the judge's schedule. The judge isn't allowing either side to mess with her schedule. Samsung's not introducing late evidence, Apple's not going to get to call all the witnesses they want.

Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has been caught buying their design expert witness for 75.000 USD. Though normal to cover expenses for expert witnesses, this is quite excessive. The guy even describes himself as a professional expert witness on his own website.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[dhermann]

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[Anonymous Coward]

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

You stopped reading after the first of the 3 sentences?

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent acknowledged that they get paid. He brought issue with exorbitant compensation being given to expert witnesses. Finding an expert to support your claim is one thing, paying a reputable witness to agree with whatever you want is an entirely different thing.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[arbiter1]

i agree "expenses plus extra for his time there" but 75grand the guy will say anything in apple's favor then no matter how untrue it is. Hell Samsung could argue he to jury that if they paid him that he would be in samsungs favor bashing apple so can't take anything he says at face value.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[chrb]

Expert witnesses are supposed to be paid for their time - not for their testimony in itself. If the amount of money is excessive, then it suggests that what the client is really buying is the testimony itself rather than merely compensating an independent expert witness for their time. So, the question is, do you honestly think that this expert witness's time "so far" is worth $75k? How many hours work did he put in here? What is his hourly rate? He has "so far" given a testimony that (quote) "mainly verified that the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker." Now, maybe he really did put a huge amount of time into figuring that out, or maybe his hourly rate is really high - like $5k/hour or so - but it is also possible that he is being paid to paid provide a certain viewpoint that does not actually represent independent research. (And yes, this kind of thing probably happens often in these kind of court cases, which is why it needs to be called out when it is blatant).

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[v1]

Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

Maybe they're more like consultants?

To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony against you in spite, or (B) cover their costs plus a little "for the trouble" to come out and make your testimony and give them an opportunity to be "the expert" up at the front of the room which most of them probably enjoy anyway.

Now (B) certainly is abusable. Some people will say anything for money, even under threat of perjury. But it has its reasonable place. It's up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness. The opposing council is certainly within their right to try to undermine that credibility if they can demonstrate that they were paid lavishly to testify. That's the check-and-balance here. These guys can probably make around 75k speaking at any event, this isn't a lot different to them.

In any event, I think that most "expert witnesses" could slant their testimony at least a little bit in either direction if they wanted to, they have enough facts to be able to put at least a little spin on it either way. You have to hope that the opposing council practices spin control. Juries understand that this is a "witness for party xxx" and will give it a little larger grain of salt when they're supporting party xxx if they're doing their job.

I also think there is some question of "expert witness" and "impartial witness". Good reading: http://www.balindaandco.com/Blog/Personal-Injury-Are-expert-witnesses-impartial/
They propose some solutions, but the best seems to be "each side brings their own 'expert witness' to testify before the jury". If you can't guarantee impartialness, at least get both sides of the spin presented to the jury.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, maybe he really did put a huge amount of time into figuring that out, or maybe his hourly rate is really high - like $5k/hour or so - but it is also possible that he is being paid to paid provide a certain viewpoint that does not actually represent independent research. (And yes, this kind of thing probably happens often in these kind of court cases, which is why it needs to be called out when it is blatant).

His hourly rate probably is high, he is an expert and he probably had to be convinced to put his retirement aside to go hang out with lawyers for *weeks* going over some of the most arcane legal texts around... If I was a retired engineer with enough money in the bank to live comfortably for the rest of my life, you would have to make the deal pretty damn sweet to get me involved.

Alternatively, if I wasn't retired - you would have to convince me to make my boss angry by delaying whatever project I'm working on.

Also, this stuff does take time. Apple testified to spending $1,800,000 on their own employee's salaries gathering some of the evidence they're using in this case... they must have had a lot of people working for a long time to hit that figure.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[chrb]

His hourly rate probably is high, he is an expert and he probably had to be convinced to put his retirement aside

He isn't retired, he is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. But he also appears have a rather profitable sideline as a (self described) professional expert witness.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[elashish14]

Nah, I'd prefer to let him go on. I'm looking forward to the brainbust he's gonna have when he looks at the other witnesses...

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[squizzar]

I don't know how it works in the US, but over here in Engerland expert witnesses are required by the court to be impartial. We had a lecture from a guy at Uni whose job was investigating electronic engineering failures and was often an expert witness in legal trials associated with these failures. He also told several clients to settle out of court because his testimony would lose them the case (e.g. his investigation had shown them to be at fault, and when examined he was legally obliged to say exactly that).

So it's not entirely unreasonable that Apple pay their guy an enormous consulting fee for researching the situation so he can provide reasoned and unbiased testimony. If his research led him to believe Apple were in the wrong then there's no obligation for them to ask him to take the stand.

Re:Apple caught buying expert witness for 75k$

[ToasterMonkey]

He has "so far" given a testimony that (quote) "mainly verified that the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker." Now, maybe he really did put a huge amount of time into figuring that out, or maybe his hourly rate is really high - like $5k/hour or so - but it is also possible that he is being paid to paid provide a certain viewpoint that does not actually represent independent research.

Your logic doesn't make sense, if he's overpaid because his testimony is not worth much or stating the obvious, where on Earth is there room to express a viewpoint that does not represent independent research? He's not making outrageous claims is he?

Maybe he is just overpaid, or highly reputable and asked for high compensation for testifying in a high profile case.

...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal...

[Picass0]

Koh may have just handed Apple what they need to prove she has a bias if they need to appeal this case later.

There appropriate ways for a Judge to express their frustrations at a plaintiff.

Anyone else?

[HangingChad]

Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

Re:Anyone else?

[na1led]

Since all these people running the legal system are on crack, you need to smoke the same stuff to understand their perspective.

Re:Anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, crack has a tendency to make the users aggressive etc... But i do suggest some LSD for the jury and other people following this case closely.....

Re:Anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

Maybe, but for now we'll just have to live with the fact that they all snort cocaine instead.

Re:Anyone else?

[VortexCortex]

Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

I think it would make more sense if they weren't... eventually.

Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...)

[Zero__Kelvin]

You don't mod stories, you mod posts. There is no reason to believe you are any more or less likely to be biased than anyone else, so there is no reason to prohibit modding posts, even when they are related to the story you submitted. Also, you could have simply not modded. You aren't forced to mod. You did know that, right?

Re:Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...)

[Anonymous Coward]

> You don't mod stories, you mod posts.

Right. So when someone says "mod story", it's a pretty good bet that they used it as short hand for "mod posts in the story".

> There is no reason to believe you are any more or less likely to be biased than anyone else, so there is no reason to prohibit modding posts, even when they are related to the story you submitted.

What he said was nothing about prohibiting modding. In fact if modding your own story was prohibited then he obviously would not have had to post anything.

> Also, you could have simply not modded. You aren't forced to mod. You did know that, right?

Pretty obviously he wanted to make that explicit and public. What's wrong with that?

You must be fun at parties.

Re:Sorry ... can't do it. (Was:Please ignore...)

[VortexCortex]

You don't mod stories, you mod posts.

B-But... I mod stories all the time in the Firehose.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal.

[FatAlb3rt]

Inappropriate != bias

Ability to tolerate use of "wearing thin"

[FFOMelchior]

Is wearing thin.

Re:Ability to tolerate use of "wearing thin"

[Un pobre guey]

the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin

You're right. It is a misuse in reference to a fixed interval that is elapsing. It would be correct if she was granting additional allotments of time, but was losing the inclination to continue doing so. Her patience is wearing thin though, and I certainly don't blame her. She should squeeze both parties' balls even harder.

Re:Ability to tolerate use of "wearing thin"

[vakuona]

She should squeeze both parties' balls even harder.

They might like that!

When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Revotron]

Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.

I'm in full agreement that the entire legal system is in need of extensive reform, but it shouldn't come in the form of cowboy (or cowgirl) judges making off-the-cuff remarks like those we've been hearing from Judge Koh.

Judge Koh, you're making it very clear that you don't find this trial to be a good use of your time. In that case, remove yourself. You have the power - rather, the responsibility - to remove yourself from a trial if you know or feel that you cannot provide fair and equal treatment to both plaintiff and defendant. Otherwise, you have a legal duty to preside over this case in a fair and professional manner.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Agent.Nihilist]

Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.

To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.

That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.

Firstly, the suggestion that you should get a better class of justice if you have billions of dollars to argue over is truly vile and despicable. Either these sort of comments are acceptable by a judge or they are not. The wealth and claims of the parties is irrelevant to that.

Secondly, to answer your question, Lucy Koh worked at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a Palo Alto, California law firm as a litigation partner representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters from 2002 to 2008. So I imagine she 'became a patent lawyer' around then or a bit before.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Revotron]

Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need? Please explain further. I'm aware that rejections happen for a multitude of reasons, so it would seem that having alternates is a must.

Though I personally fail to see why it's a big deal, and I understand that a time limit is a time limit, all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present", not "you wouldn't submit this unless you were smoking crack".

My opinion remains that this judge is very unprofessional.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[khallow]

Why would either side be considered unprofessional for naming more witnesses than they need?

Almost four times as many witnesses as they could possibly question?

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to read the GP's Subject line again.

Judy != Koh

I believe the GP subject is intended as a joke referring to the sensationalist comments and behavior going on in this trial being akin to those found on small claims court TV shows.

Although I think by "Lawyer" he may have meant "Judge".

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[DeeEff]

all she would have to say is "you need to cut this list down to only the witnesses you plan to present"

That's what the point of Apple submitting this list was all about in the first place. She had asked that the first time and they gave her a list of 20 witnesses that Apple believed they were going to bring to court.

She told them off. Unprofessional or not, she could have done much worse to Apple's lawyers for trying to waste her own as well as the courts' time. I think it's a welcome change for this case, and is probably one of the reasons Koh remained as judge for it. This needs to be a quick, no-nonsense, no-bullshit, no-courtroom-theatrics case that settles things once and for all. The amount of patent cases in a day alone waste enough of the courts' time, and I doubt that anyone wants it to be wasted anymore, because Apple thinks their going to get away with 20 witnesses in an impossibly short amount of time.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your opinion is shit. All you have to base it on is second or third hand comments from media or corporate lawyers.

Also, anyone familiar with the legal system would realize that the lawyers on both sides are play acting through this entire trial because they *know* it is just a step on the way to an appeal.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.

To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.

That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.

From TFSummary:
75 is the number of pages in the document and 22 the number of witnesses in that document.

Whilst it would be easy to rip your post to shreds, it's by no means the most worthy of disdain in the blindly pro-Android bollocks that we currently have to put up with on Slashdot.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

> My opinion remains that this judge is very unprofessional.

If I am not mistaken, judges are elected in America. That pretty much means that they are not "professional."

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, got it now. Hopefully I misunderstood his comments over the billions being sued for as well, if not then then I may have to sue him for $73 trillion in mental anguish and the judge had better be patient with my lack of case because it's trillions of dollars at stake!

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Revotron]

I think you mean 20 witnesses in a 75-page report, not 75 witnesses.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Revotron]

Sorry, who are you again? I can't see your username behind that AC label.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[mclaincausey]

ORLY? Given how prepared Apple's counsel has been in this case (particularly versus the Samsung clusterfuck) I will take them at their word when they say they timed out the witnesses. 10-12 minutes per witness is reasonable if they have specific nuggets of testimony to extract. The objections? Not so much.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

And he can't see your actual name behind the Revotron label.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

75 witnesses would be 3.2 minutes per witness, assuming that each one started and ended instantly.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon, I mistook the numbers from the OP that were incorrect.

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, who are you again? Hiding behind a pusedoname without a publicly visible email address!

Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer?

[macshit]

Regardless of which side it favors, this is very unprofessional behavior coming from a judge presiding over a very influential case that could result in millions, even billions, of dollars in damages.

No it's not.

There's no requirement that judges stick to mild language; it's not at all unusual for judges to be frustrated with obviously stupid games played by lawyers arguing a case, and using harsh language does not indicate prejudice. That it didn't indicate prejudice in this case is abundantly clear from the context of the statement—Apple's request was simply bizarre, and her remark simply reflected that (using a standard epithet which means exactly that).

If Apple wants to be treated more "professionally," it's very clear how they should precede: act more professionally themselves and stop playing stupid games in court.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal.

[Jeng]

Considering her attitude towards both sides, is it possible for both sides to request her removal?

Changing jurisdiction

[gmuslera]

DEA will continue with this proceeding from now on.

Exactly Wrong

[SuperKendall]

A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.

Good grief man, have you ever seen any real trials?

It is EXACTLY the job of a judge to ride herd over lawyers on both sides, as they will take whatever advantage they can eek out. You cannot have some mild judge that gets rode over by the alpha personality that almost every trial lawyer exhibits.

A judge must make, then strictly enforce, rules - or else the lawyers will just take over.

Lucy In the iSky

[Tablizer]

S. Jobs was fond of LSD. It seems the culture spread in Apple.

Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[SuperKendall]

Apple has been caught buying their design expert witness for 75.000 USD.

They guy worked for it though, 136 hours or so (if you had read the article you'd know he was being paid $550/hour).

You seem to think an expert witness is just spending a few hours on a stand. Not so, there are MANY hours spent in preparation of a trial, also helping APple produce supporting documents or determine what is infringing.

That seems like a lot of money but consider that the person has to work in a high stress environment, taking time away from other projects - and to boot is highly valuable as having actually been the one working on a lot of Apple icons. $550/hour is totally reasonable.

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[arbiter1]

anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[Fwipp]

$550 an hour is totally reasonable? I'm pretty sure if you took 55 people off the streets, paid them $10/hr each, and put them to work for over 3 full work weeks you'd get a more comprehensive result than "the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone along with features like black color, a display central on the front of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker."

I could probably get my eleven year old brother to provide a better analysis for free in a day.

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[oldlurker]

anyone else see him spending 136 hours as kinda fishy? did he really spend that much time?

Well, to put it this way, if it took him 136 hours to see that the Samsung design was similar to the Apple design (he was a design witness), maybe Samsung should call him to the stand :)

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[R3d M3rcury]

Agreed. $550 an hour is ridiculous. That's, like, twice what I get paid!

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[vakuona]

I am a consultant at a big 4 firm, and my hourly rate (before any discounts) is more than $550, and I am nowhere near senior manager let alone partner. His time is worth a lot. He is not being paid millions to do this, but that rate would be par for the course, if not a little cheap.

Re:Not exorbitant, per hour was $550

[SuperKendall]

$550 an hour is totally reasonable? I'm pretty sure if you took 55 people off the streets, paid them $10/hr each, and put them to work for over 3 full work weeks you'd get a more comprehensive result than "the Galaxy S has the same rectangular form as the iPhone...

Yes you would, and Apple would lose because only an idiot claims the lawsuit is about a simple rectangular form.

The reason why the woman gets $550 (pretty sure it was a woman, messed that up in my original post) is that she is able to give them truly expert analysis needed to move the trial forward. Having worked on Apple's designs before, she can say what the general design language of Apple is like, and why they can lay out a case that Samsung borrowed or stole that design language wholesale in a lot of cases.

Again, having an expert in design who ALSO worked on Apple's icons is invaluable, and given the degree of annoyance this would be to her why would she NOT charge that rate? I doubt Apple had much to do with it, it's quite a lot more likely she is the one that set the rates.

This of it this way, you are a key witness in a massive Apple trial, yet you know the whole thing won't end up billing more than a few hundred hours at best. Why would you NOT demand a really high rate?

In other news....

[peoples_champion]

Apple has just put a patent on the term "smoking crack", people who use the term, and/or engage in the activity could now be charge with copyright infringement. This may prove to be the most serious blow to the crack consumers, and the illegal drugs industry at large........

Re:In other news....

[VortexCortex]

Apple has just put a patent on the term "smoking crack", people who use the term, and/or engage in the activity could now be charge with copyright infringement. This may prove to be the most serious blow to the crack consumers, and the illegal drugs industry at large........

Violating a patent doesn't cause people to infringe copyright. Anyhow, You mean trademark. They probably could indeed trademark the term. I mean, they trademarked "Podcast" when that term had already been in common use...

The only good way to handle this

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good way to handle this is to then charge Apple with a felony.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal.

[ewieling]

I hope both sides appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. End this BS once and for all.

Simple solution

[pubwvj]

It is obvious that Samsung has indeed copied Apple. There is a simple solution. Rule in favor of Apple thus blocking Samsung from sales but award damages of only $1 and no attorney fees. This whole patenting nonsense has gone way overboard. Time to dismantle the entire patent system since the players can't play nice. That will take legislation.

Re:Simple solution

[Daetrin]

I'm pretty sure Apple would view that as a great outcome and it would only encourage them to initiate more patent lawsuits. Your "solution" doesn't really seem to be in line with your stated beliefs.

Re:Simple solution

[R3d M3rcury]

So what you're saying is that Apple should be rewarded for patenting round rectangles with glass on the front?

If the "whole patenting nonsense has gone way overboard," it time to smack those who patent nonsensical things, like round rectangles with glass on the front or a phone receiver with a green background.

Re:Simple solution

[jrumney]

And the essential 3G patents which Apple has steadfastly refused to pay a single dime for for the last 5 years? Can we award Samsung their dollar back and ban sales of iPhones for that too. What a great idea, and if we do the same to HTC and Motorola, the cellphone division of Microsoft can move from Finland to the US and have their very own protected market!

Re:Simple solution

[LodCrappo]

It is obvious that Samsung has indeed copied Apple

obvious to whom? other judges have already ruled that samsung did not copy apple, even going so far as to force Apple to publicly admit that Samsung never copied them... http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/18/apple-patent-ruling-judge-samsung-copy-ipad/

this is hardly the clear cut case that iDiots would have you think it is.

Re:Simple solution

[pubwvj]

No, the reason for the simple solution I proposed is to work within the existing framework of laws and then change the laws. For the current case we can't apply future law but must solve this. Then we can change the laws and regulations to avoid this in the future.

An astute Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

This Judge obviously knows a fiend when she sees one. It entirely explains the pricing of their products and vicious patents, which when factoring in habit support, now makes perfect sense. Maybe after a few months of Narcotics Anonymous, we could see prices coming down and lawsuits disappearing.

Judge probablly got a free galaxy s3.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the judge an just a android user is all. Probablly got a free galaxy nexus s3 or something from samsung and her idiotic mind just was blown away by it despite being an inferior piece of shit phone.

Judge is just another in the long line of people who hate apple for being the best at what they do and going after the competition. Just like the morons who used to love sony finally got tired of them being the best so now they want to hate them for no reason. Just like people used to love microsftfor being the best but now hate them and laughabley say they love linux. Its all about "What is cool to like/dislike today based on popular opinion".

You know the old niger saying goes, haters gonna hate.

Justice delayed is justice denied

[symbolset]

Both parties rely on the fact that a definitive resolution of these issues cannot be found before the courts, and various courts of appeals, until long after the related products are irrelevant. SCO v. Novell is into its ninth year, both companies for all intents no longer exist. And yet lawyers will stand before the bar and argue this case for a while yet. If there is enough money left whatever decisions reached will be appealed to another court still.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal.

[Jane Q. Public]

But inappropriate can still = grounds for appeal.

Re:...establishing the grounds for Apple's appeal.

[Jane Q. Public]

I was going to say a similar thing myself, but not about "bias".

Apple could simply be doing it on the grounds that it is necessary testimony, and disallowing it denies them a fair trial.

Bzzzt. Wrong Drug

[tritone]

She should have said "dropping acid." This is Apple after all.

Communications Breakdown

[hyades1]

I think what we're seeing here is a fundamental failure to have a meeting of the minds in light of new circumstances. Judge Lucy realizes that all the recent public interest in this trial exposed how much she's been in the tank for Apple, and she's decided to start playing it straight...or at least give that appearance.

Apple, on the other hand, still seems to believe that they own her skinny apps. ;-)

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Apple Inc. Top Management prefer cocaine ingest by:

A) Smoking

B) Injection of serum into blood veins

C) Snorting, using 'Franklins' as the medium of 'tube'

D) Enama.

Another Perry Mason wannabe. Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

"One: this is a jury trial. As such, there are twelve jurors, "

No this is a civil trial. Twelve is not a specified number for the jury. IIRC this trial actually has nine.

Not Supprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Checking the various employee databases behind Apple Inc. firewalls reveals that Apple Inc. higher Management prefer Enama infusion of cocaine.

This is likely due to the 'Gay' nature of Apple Inc. higher management.

Snicker Snicker

Samsung Whips ?!

[Taco Cowboy]

their products, ships, earth moving equipment, large industrial power control devices, home appliances, LCD screens, power supplies, chips, dips, chains, and whips .

Oh God knows I tried, but no matter which search engine I use, I just can't find "Samsung Whip" or "Samsung Whips" or anything similar
 
Would you be kind enough to tell us where to locate the Samsung Whips(TM) ?
 
Many thanks !!
 

Samsung caught buying expert witness for 200k$

[wisebabo]

"Yang has made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit" for Samsung

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/samsung-says-it-patented-iphones-best-features-before-apple/

Ah, market cap

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon. Market cap is just a measure of how much the company owes to those out there holding their shares.

No, it isn't.

[Kupfernigk]

The company doesn't have any obligation to buy shares back; they are in no sense a debt.

The share prices is the marginal trade price for small numbers of shares. Multiplying it by the number of shares is a bogus number. If all the shareholders in Apple tried to cash in on the same day - or even the same six months window - the price would collapse.

Market cap is a term invented by Wall Street to sell stock bubbles to dim punters.

Re:No, it isn't.

[CHIT2ME]

This is why I've sold all my Apple stock and reinvested elsewhere. Once the "Hukster-In-Chief" died Apple was doomed to a slow and painful decline. I made my money. Don't lose yours! Get out now while the stock is still worth something.

Lets put it this simply

[SmallFurryCreature]

Samsung can answer the question of you and what army of killer robots. They got them. The market cap of Samsung is the GDP of Korea.

Meanwhile Apple is a very small player in a very crowded market that already was at deaths door once and the leader who pulled them out of it is dead.

The two companies are VERY different. If Apple loses mobile, it is dead. If Samsung looses mobile, only Samsung mobile is dead. And Samsung itself will continue and continue earning money on EVERY Apple device as it contains Samsung tech.

That is probably also the reason Apple is so pissed. Samsung gets money for every iPhone and iPad. Apple gets nothing (because it has nothing anybody wants for their devices). That hurts, Apple wants to sell stuff to other producers too but they got nothing but design and design is hard to sell to other designers.

This entire trial is between a company that makes physical parts that it sells to a design company that wants to sell its ideas. 40 bucks for a border around a screen. Fair isn't it? After all, Samsung and the likes get 40 bucks for the screen so why not 40 bucks in return for the design of the bezel?

Don't discount this, a LOT of republicans who want to outsource jobs want to turn the entire US economy into an idea economy where the west sells ideas to the east in exchange for physical products.

Problem: patents for physical objects are clear, for ideas... not so much.

This case is test if the "knowledge" economy (where knowledge is not hard science but design and ideas) is workable.

I don't think it is.

Re:Lets put it this simply

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is going to receive some from MS' sales of their butt-ugly tablets. That's probably not going to be a lot, though

Chicago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone else imagining the Razzle Dazzle song playing while Apple is trying to present this?
"Give 'em the old Razzle Dazlle... Razzle Dazzle em" ^_~

Apple has heavily invested in manufacturing

[Quila]

While other companies make their product, Apple has pumped billions into getting those factories built, modernized and/or retooled to make Apple's products. Often, this investment comes with exclusive access to the product for Apple for a period of time. IIRC, Apple invested over $1 billion in the Sharp plant that makes the Retina iPad LCDs. Apple also recently placed orders for $5 billion in industrial robots to put into Foxconn's plants to make their gadgets, possibly tying up global robot production for a while.

Re:Apple has heavily invested in manufacturing

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with people just repeating whatever wrongness they've heard as fact? Fiction: Apple invested in a Sharp plant that makes iPad LCDs. Fact: Samsung makes LCDs for the New iPad. Only short sighted American business sense demands to view actually making stuff with your own equipment as a strategy that's not viable long term.

Re:Apple has heavily invested in manufacturing

[Quila]

Apple invested in a Sharp plant that makes iPad LCDs. Fact: Samsung makes LCDs for the New iPad.

Apple sources the displays from Samsung, LG and Sharp. Apple brought Sharp up to speed so they could be an extra source for a critical part.

Talk about repeating whatever wrongness they've heard as fact.

Rounded corners...

[niftymitch]

Antique-Double-Sided-School-Student-Chalk-Board-Slate-Vintage

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Double-Sided-School-Student-Chalk-Board-Slate-Vintage-House-Kids-Lined-/200805561955

Prototype of the Notepad application:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Childs-Primitive-Wooden-Slate-Schoolhouse-Chalk-Board-School-Chalkboard-/170895205376

smoke crack

[FrontDoors]

Judge Lucy Koh's will smoke crack herself soon . ;)

where is the list?

[peawormsworth]

Can someone please post a link to the list of witnesses Apple has requested? Im sure there is a link above, but I cannot find it.

So who were the witnesses?

[JTsyo]

First I thought she was miffed by who they were trying to call. Further reading informs me they were under time constraints.

the most basic concept from school tech 101

[cheekyboy]

Dude, overlapping windows, is like some one trying to patent the printf() function thereby ruining it for everyone else.

Beginner coders in the 80s coded overlapping windows for text mode DOS 'window handlers', ie rect sections for text/textmode windows.

It shouldnt matter if its rendered using a raster pixmap, or ascii mode using ------------ or | | etc.... or rendered using vector monitors, or 3d GL stuff.

The concept is a natural progression of needs of programmers.

Its like exam questions at school, if 80% of students can answer the question, then the question cant really be made into a patent, can it.... only really hard to create efforts deserver a patent.