"Here are some designs from 2006." is evidence. You raise questions that could affect how that evidence would be understood and treated by jurors, and it is Apple's right to present that evidence to jurors too. But that doesn't make it not evidence. It up to a jury to decide how much credibility to lend it and how it pertains to the charges, but they have to be shown it first.
It's only evidence when the possibility of the fact demonstrating that a belief is true, exists, which it doesn't in this context, for more than one reason, beginning from the Judge having previously ruled against its validity.
Excuse me, but article you link to doesn't say anything like that, only mention of Ive there is "The files contains a snippet of a deposition by former Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori who said that Appleâ(TM)s design chief Jonathan Ive told him to create a phone inspired by Sonyâ(TM)s designs", no mention of Ive publicly disclosing it in 2006 or Nishibori telling this to Samsung in 2006.
You miss the point. I provided that link to demonstrate that it is public knowledge that Samsung knew about the iPhone designs back in 2006, so the claim that I am confusing anything made in the GGP is invalid. I am not confusing anything, Samsung DID know about the iPhone designs back in 2006, and they lost the ability to claim plausible denial about that knowledge once they made it public. TLDR: They fucked themselves up.
You're conflating "Samsung is aware of these 2006 design mockups" and "Samsung was aware of these design mockups in 2006". One of those follows from available evidence, other one doesn't (and probably would entail an industrial espionage investigation).
No, I'm not. Jonathan Ive disclosed that himself in 2006, this is public knowledge, and before you accuse Apple of fabricating evidence, what's quoted there is Samsung's version of the story! Apple's lawyers are having it really easy in this trial, with Samsung shooting themselves in the feet every time they try to argue for their defense.
No it's not. It's about what an iPhone could look like if it had been created by SONY, and it postdates the 2005 design mockups which already resembled the iPhone 4/4S.
For starters it's their fault for missing the deadline. They have no plausible reason to miss a deadline for key evidence like this unless they were quickly creating the evidence (it has already been established that Samsung destroyed evidence even following a court order to retain it, so this wouldn't be too unlikely).
Secondly, that evidence isn't even evidence considering the existence of iPhone designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's demonstration of knowledge of what the iPhone would look like (by accusing Apple of copying SONY using a design from 2006).
Conclusion: there is absolutely no reason to accept that as evidence. The only purpose it would serve would be to confuse the jury and idiots from the public (which they evidently succeeded, otherwise I wouldn't have to reply to this).
1 - Samsung accusing Apple of copying SONY and using an Apple design mockup from 2006, which implies that they already had knowledged of how the iPhone would look like at that point;
2 - Apple filed designs from 2005 which predate both the mockup that Samsung was aware of and Samsung's designs.
They're only not-evidence in the fiction that is the legal world. Nobody's rights are being protected by restricting this evidence; there's no poisoned tree here. There is no logical reason that it shouldn't be considered in the trial.
Yes there is logical reason: Apple already filed evidence demonstrating designs dating back from 2006 thus making TFA's concepts NOT evidence, but if that wasn't bad enough, Samsung actually shot themselves in the feet by claiming that Apple copied SONY and using a pre-iPhone design as evidence, thus demonstrating that they had knowledge of Apple's designs and could have easily copied them. This argument is completely devoid of validity and is only being used to sow confusion.
And the problem is based on old outdated phones. The galaxy 3 is a turd compared to the nexus. Fat honking chunk phone that if you squint looks like a iphone if drawn by salvador dali...
Which Samsung was allowed to profit from. Now they have to be punished.
Someone is going to make some really good designs, designs that are way better than Apple's. That's the benefits we are going to get if Apple wins.
Finally, someone who gets it! Apple's way ins't the only way -- they've shown the world that it's possible to come late and win the game, others take that as example and try to do the same.
I don't really care that much how the trial pans out... But I do care about the fact that it seems like this trial is hurting my choices as a consumer. I like choice. From what I can see Apple is trying reeeeally hard to show that they should own a bunch of really nice UI ideas. Or that a touchscreen filling most of the user facing side of the phone is their idea? Frankly, the whole thing seems ridiculous.
Then you find patents to be ridiculous, in which case it doesn't matter. You can't deny their legal validity based on being ridiculous.
Recently I've been looking at buying an IP67-grade Android phone. AFAIK Apple has no plans to make the iPhone waterproof and dustproof. So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?
Nobody's stopping third parties from producing waterproof iPhone covers...
Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.
Form a party, convince the crowds, get elected, change the world.
Well from the sound of things, Apple did examine the evidence and decided to use it themselves. Why does Apple get to use Samsung's own evidence (and lie about it) but Samsung doesn't?
Because Samsung went straight to the media to shame Apple when the evidence was denied by their own fault. Also, when did Apple lie? And what did they lie about? Even if the evidence was accepted it would have been refuted by Apple's designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's own claims that Apple copied SONY (which would have shown the court that they were aware of Apple's designs). There is absolutely no reason to be so butthurt about this, Samsung would be on the losing side either way.
I don't get it. I know some nerds designing their own mobile phones and computer in one with a touch screen back before 2006. They didn't have the capital and maybe inclination to follow through with their projects and/or mass manufacture them. It's a pretty obvious development of technology. More functions in smaller devices, and the design of the smartphone was pretty much there even in 2002. It's a pretty small evolution from the cell phone. So how is all this IP noise even justified in the first place?
Getting everything right to the smallest detail, in the other hand, is quite hard. iOS was the first mobile firmware to actually work well without a stylus -- that's not obvious design; he iPhone was the first touchscreen phone to come with a proximity sensor so that you wouldn't dial random crap or hang up calls by accident with your face -- that's not obvious design either; but it is this kind of attention to detail that can make your product succeed. After the iPhone came out and Apple showed the world how it's done, those things became obvious, but nobody was doing them before because there were fundamental flaws preventing those technologies from working seamlessly together, and that's what this is all about.
this is a: the same judge that filed the injunction against samsung and b: says things need to be public. Samsung releasing one of it's own designs? Questionable that there can be any judicial influence on the topic.
Samsung released that as "evidence" with a clear intent to confuse both the public and the jury since they were already aware that it wasn't evidence due to the existence of Apple's 2005 designs refuting it.
It should not matter which was first. The fact that Samsung had this design before they had seen the iPhone design means that they clearly came up with it independently. Patents are broken. They currently serve to do the exact opposite of what they were intended for.
Except that is not a fact. Samsung shot themselves in the feet when they claimed that Apple copied SONY using a pre-iPhone Apple design as evidence and demonstrating that they knew what the iPhone would look like before its release. Since that claim had no validity as Apple produced evidence by demonstrating designs dating back to 2005, Samsung lost both their claim and their plausible denial.
So in the face of the above you seem to be claiming that Samsung was so crap scared of the 'awesome innovation' of the unreleased iPhone that they used their spy network to get the details so they can design one that was similar?
No, Apple themselves made Samsung aware of it in 2006, and Samsung copied the designs. It has already been established, by Samsung nonetheless, that they had access to iPhone design mockups from 2006 (they shot themselves in the feet by accusing Apple of copying SONY based on one of those designs), so they can't claim plausible denial anymore.
Don't try to use actual reasons and logic, it will be lost anyways on the rabid Apple fanboism.
If you were being logical, you would have already figured out that Samsung had knowledge of iPhone designs from 2006 based on GGP's quote and concluded that TFA's designs were, in fact, not evidence of anything other than that after gaining knowledge of a potential upcoming iPhone design. This is not to mention that Apple had actually presented iPhone designs from 2005 and iPad designs from 2003, which is why the designs presented in TFA were suppressed by the Judge.
Samsung is effectively shooting themselves in the feet with each claim they make in their own defense, and I'm finding the whole thing quite hilarious. By accusing Apple of copying SONY they have effectively destroyed their ability to claim plausible denial of lack of knowledge about Apple's pre-iPhone designs. From what it looks like at the moment, Samsung is totally fucked in this regard.
The iPhone had not yet been released in 2006, it came out in 2007. Did Apple tell Samsung to avoid designing a similar phone before Apple announced it?
Samsung fucked up any possibility to claim plausible denial the moment they accused Apple of copying SONY based on a design mockup from 2006 featuring a device similar to the iPhone with the letters JONY written on it in a similar fashion to SONY's logo. Not only are they gonna lose this trial because they're simply wrong but there's overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that they copied Apple, but also because their lawyers are simply incompetent.
Except that at that point, Samsung was already aware of Apple's SONY design mockup thus making this evidence irrelevant to the case (they shot themselves in the feet by accusing Apple of copying SONY). Furthermore, Apple has shown their own prototypes from 2005, completely destroying Samsung's claims.
It is likely that the Judge was already aware of all these arguments in the beginning and suppressed them because she saw no need to make more information public than what was strictly necessary for the ruling, and Samsung is being reprimanded now for trying to damage Apple's image with false claims.
Why are you so terrible at replying to the post to which you're responding?
Because I read at -1 with expanded comments and Slashdot imposes a nesting cap that makes it extremely hard to figure out who is replying to what after a certain point. That cap is also the reason why I usually quote everything here.
If Apple can copy the form factor of plastic frames, why can't Samsung?
Because there already was a product in the market with that appearance. Pretty simple, really. And I'm not saying I agree with the deduction that led you to this conclusion, only that even if the patents are found to be invalid, Samsung is still infringing, so your argument is moot.
If you make a black plastic copy from resin of the iPad it has EXACTLY the same design. But it isn't electronic. However, the form isn't "electronic" for the ipad either, unless it requires coronal discharge as part of the design feature.
The designs covers a electronic appliances explicitly. That's already been mentioned 3 times.
There is no point of continue this discussion when they keep on putting words in my mouth, and when I pointed out the obvious to them, they came back with stuffs like "implied", "interpret", "inferred", and when I pointed to them that there was no such thing in what I had said, they retort in every which way they can, including the use of verbal diarrhea
When you question fairness (impartiality), you imply the possibility of the existence of bias (partiality). Failing to understand this (as you have already demonstrated to be incapable of) means you are a retard. Verbal abuse should play no role in the outcome of a logical debate; if you're letting that dissuade you, then you are unfit for such a debate. Please keep up and leave the bullshit at the door, I'm not done with you het.
Given that there are very few engineers who can understand a patent and that patents are written by lawyers, asking random people instead of high profile patent lawyers to be jurors is insanely dumb.
I guess that's exactly the point. People who are ignorant regarding a particular subject are less likely to show bias.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only evidence when the possibility of the fact demonstrating that a belief is true, exists, which it doesn't in this context, for more than one reason, beginning from the Judge having previously ruled against its validity.
You miss the point. I provided that link to demonstrate that it is public knowledge that Samsung knew about the iPhone designs back in 2006, so the claim that I am confusing anything made in the GGP is invalid. I am not confusing anything, Samsung DID know about the iPhone designs back in 2006, and they lost the ability to claim plausible denial about that knowledge once they made it public. TLDR: They fucked themselves up.
No, I'm not. Jonathan Ive disclosed that himself in 2006, this is public knowledge, and before you accuse Apple of fabricating evidence, what's quoted there is Samsung's version of the story! Apple's lawyers are having it really easy in this trial, with Samsung shooting themselves in the feet every time they try to argue for their defense.
No it's not. It's about what an iPhone could look like if it had been created by SONY, and it postdates the 2005 design mockups which already resembled the iPhone 4/4S.
For starters it's their fault for missing the deadline. They have no plausible reason to miss a deadline for key evidence like this unless they were quickly creating the evidence (it has already been established that Samsung destroyed evidence even following a court order to retain it, so this wouldn't be too unlikely).
Secondly, that evidence isn't even evidence considering the existence of iPhone designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's demonstration of knowledge of what the iPhone would look like (by accusing Apple of copying SONY using a design from 2006).
Conclusion: there is absolutely no reason to accept that as evidence. The only purpose it would serve would be to confuse the jury and idiots from the public (which they evidently succeeded, otherwise I wouldn't have to reply to this).
1 - Samsung accusing Apple of copying SONY and using an Apple design mockup from 2006, which implies that they already had knowledged of how the iPhone would look like at that point;
2 - Apple filed designs from 2005 which predate both the mockup that Samsung was aware of and Samsung's designs.
Yes there is logical reason: Apple already filed evidence demonstrating designs dating back from 2006 thus making TFA's concepts NOT evidence, but if that wasn't bad enough, Samsung actually shot themselves in the feet by claiming that Apple copied SONY and using a pre-iPhone design as evidence, thus demonstrating that they had knowledge of Apple's designs and could have easily copied them. This argument is completely devoid of validity and is only being used to sow confusion.
Which Samsung was allowed to profit from. Now they have to be punished.
Finally, someone who gets it! Apple's way ins't the only way -- they've shown the world that it's possible to come late and win the game, others take that as example and try to do the same.
Then you find patents to be ridiculous, in which case it doesn't matter. You can't deny their legal validity based on being ridiculous.
Nobody's stopping third parties from producing waterproof iPhone covers...
Form a party, convince the crowds, get elected, change the world.
Because Samsung went straight to the media to shame Apple when the evidence was denied by their own fault. Also, when did Apple lie? And what did they lie about? Even if the evidence was accepted it would have been refuted by Apple's designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's own claims that Apple copied SONY (which would have shown the court that they were aware of Apple's designs). There is absolutely no reason to be so butthurt about this, Samsung would be on the losing side either way.
Getting everything right to the smallest detail, in the other hand, is quite hard. iOS was the first mobile firmware to actually work well without a stylus -- that's not obvious design; he iPhone was the first touchscreen phone to come with a proximity sensor so that you wouldn't dial random crap or hang up calls by accident with your face -- that's not obvious design either; but it is this kind of attention to detail that can make your product succeed. After the iPhone came out and Apple showed the world how it's done, those things became obvious, but nobody was doing them before because there were fundamental flaws preventing those technologies from working seamlessly together, and that's what this is all about.
Samsung released that as "evidence" with a clear intent to confuse both the public and the jury since they were already aware that it wasn't evidence due to the existence of Apple's 2005 designs refuting it.
Except that is not a fact. Samsung shot themselves in the feet when they claimed that Apple copied SONY using a pre-iPhone Apple design as evidence and demonstrating that they knew what the iPhone would look like before its release. Since that claim had no validity as Apple produced evidence by demonstrating designs dating back to 2005, Samsung lost both their claim and their plausible denial.
No, Apple themselves made Samsung aware of it in 2006, and Samsung copied the designs. It has already been established, by Samsung nonetheless, that they had access to iPhone design mockups from 2006 (they shot themselves in the feet by accusing Apple of copying SONY based on one of those designs), so they can't claim plausible denial anymore.
If you were being logical, you would have already figured out that Samsung had knowledge of iPhone designs from 2006 based on GGP's quote and concluded that TFA's designs were, in fact, not evidence of anything other than that after gaining knowledge of a potential upcoming iPhone design. This is not to mention that Apple had actually presented iPhone designs from 2005 and iPad designs from 2003, which is why the designs presented in TFA were suppressed by the Judge.
Samsung is effectively shooting themselves in the feet with each claim they make in their own defense, and I'm finding the whole thing quite hilarious. By accusing Apple of copying SONY they have effectively destroyed their ability to claim plausible denial of lack of knowledge about Apple's pre-iPhone designs. From what it looks like at the moment, Samsung is totally fucked in this regard.
Which they are going to. Those designs were suppressed because they are not evidence.
Samsung fucked up any possibility to claim plausible denial the moment they accused Apple of copying SONY based on a design mockup from 2006 featuring a device similar to the iPhone with the letters JONY written on it in a similar fashion to SONY's logo. Not only are they gonna lose this trial because they're simply wrong but there's overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that they copied Apple, but also because their lawyers are simply incompetent.
Except that at that point, Samsung was already aware of Apple's SONY design mockup thus making this evidence irrelevant to the case (they shot themselves in the feet by accusing Apple of copying SONY). Furthermore, Apple has shown their own prototypes from 2005, completely destroying Samsung's claims.
It is likely that the Judge was already aware of all these arguments in the beginning and suppressed them because she saw no need to make more information public than what was strictly necessary for the ruling, and Samsung is being reprimanded now for trying to damage Apple's image with false claims.
Because I read at -1 with expanded comments and Slashdot imposes a nesting cap that makes it extremely hard to figure out who is replying to what after a certain point. That cap is also the reason why I usually quote everything here.
Because there already was a product in the market with that appearance. Pretty simple, really. And I'm not saying I agree with the deduction that led you to this conclusion, only that even if the patents are found to be invalid, Samsung is still infringing, so your argument is moot.
The designs covers a electronic appliances explicitly. That's already been mentioned 3 times.
When you question fairness (impartiality), you imply the possibility of the existence of bias (partiality). Failing to understand this (as you have already demonstrated to be incapable of) means you are a retard. Verbal abuse should play no role in the outcome of a logical debate; if you're letting that dissuade you, then you are unfit for such a debate. Please keep up and leave the bullshit at the door, I'm not done with you het.
I guess that's exactly the point. People who are ignorant regarding a particular subject are less likely to show bias.