In my experience*, that's because Ford puts out a cheaper, higher quality vehicle than Mercedes, with all the features people are looking for. This may or may not have always been the case, but it is certainly true, today, that Mercedes is largely trading on its name.
* Experience: Friends and neighbors who own both (there are a lot of Mercedes in my city, as well, as it's an affluent part of the SF Bay Area). Fords simply require fewer repairs, seem to handle better, and, in some cases (Ford's higher-end models), go faster than Mercedes, at a fraction of the price. Maybe the Ford owners are just better drivers, but the ride from most Fords I've been in is nicer than the ride from most Mercedes, as well; either the product is just better, or the driver is more knowledgeable, thus likely to pick the better product; do you see where this is going?
There is no big 'conspiracy' why Apple products are winning...
Apple products are winning?
...shoving 'specs' out is not how you win the Tablet game....
Oh, you're referring to tablets, good, because there are more Android phones out there than there are iPhones; Samsung, alone, sells twice as many Android phones as Apple does iPhones.
...Apple knows what most people want, Android does not.
Apple knows what Apple fans want; by and far, in the iOS vs. Android war you seem to think is being fought, people want Android, by sales numbers. Further, Android doesn't know what anyone wants, but Google's apparently got a decent idea, as do Morotola, HP, Acer, Archos, Sony, HTC, LG, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Samsung. By and far, these companies outsell Apple and it's not because Apple knows better than they do what their customers want.
You know it, I know it, a handful of other people here know it, but some people just won't get it until it happens. I'm giving up, for now; for your sanity, you should do the same.
I'm sorry, but how long did Apple think it took Samsung to design and manufacture the F700 they demoed in February of 2007?
Let's attack this from a different angle, then... Unless Apple is positing that the F700 was slammed together in under a month, they are fully aware that the phone was designed and in production long before anyone outside of Apple ever saw an iPhone. At that point, Apple must have been aware of the 2006 design patent and, so sure of their case, have already been prepared for those facts to come up in open court. The internal documents obviously existed, whether they were presented at discovery or not, and Apple was certainly aware of them, as they were certainly aware of the 2006 design patent, and this obvious awareness of the documents covers them for use in the trial once Apple opens the door for discussion of the F700, which they did.
Thank you for that additional link, however; I'm sure I'll find the content most enlightening.
I've just noticed that, in the majority of the posts where I meant to use the term "discovery", I typo'd "discover". I'd like to blame the "y" key on my keyboard, but it appears to be working just fine. Damn.
You missed the point. I wasn't seriously saying we (or anyone) should fram you for anything, I was applying your own logic to you. Samsung did not fail in this regard, the judge did; Samsung got their submission in as quickly as reasonably possible after Apple's late submission, still during discovery but close enough that the judge was able to deny them. There was no failing on Samsung's part, the judge is screwing them.
If you weren't allowed to examine the murder weapon until the end of the discovery period, there's no way you could submit your own evidence early enough that the judge could not also throw it out, as Koh did. Likewise, you would be just as entitled (and justified in doing so) to appeal any jury decision as Samsung is.
That said, given items 4 and 5, item 1 should be trivial; if item 2 were the target of the crime, 3, 6, and 7 are meaningless.
Read: "in the discovery stage", the discovery stage being the time during which both parties can enter exhibits into evidence. The only real "too late" in discover is when it's over, though a judge can, as Koh did in this case, disallow evidence if it is brought in near the end of discovery. However, this is only supposed to be done if it is wholely new evidence, completely unknown to the other party, which the other party would require time to investigate. Since Samsung's filing was in response to Apple's filing regarding the F700, Apple was clearly aware of the F700 and this was not wholely new evidence, therefore it should not have been barred.
Their late-submitted evidence is counter-evidence to Apple's own late submission. It was actually submitted on time, but close enough to the deadline that Koh was allowed to declare it inadmissable.
Apple introduced it late in discovery. Samsung countered by introducing their documents, later in discover (but still during discovery) only due to Apple's own late submission. Lucy Koh threw it out because it was submitted at the last minute, despite the fact that it was submitted the moment it became relevant.
Apple didn't bring this in after discovery; of course, neither did Samsung, but it was still not allowed.
I know! Let's frame Deorus for murder! It's a slam dunk! I'll get the prosecutor to enter their analysis of the murder weapon into evidence at the end of the discover period, so that Deorus' lawyers don't have time to enter their own analysis. Then, when his lawyers try to argue that there's no way he ever touched that weapon, the judge can tell them to go take a leap. Hell, they won't even be able to counter when the prosecution presents their own analysis of the weapon.
Wait, that's not how it works? You mean to tell me that once the prosecution makes reference to the weapon, the defense is allowed to do the same? Wait, does civil court work the same way? It does? Then Deorus is either ignorant, trolling, or both?
It was submitted in response to Apple's late submission. Had the late Apple submission not included the F700, or not been accepted, Samsung would not have made their submission.
Hmm, so this isn't Wikipedia, then? But, I digress, here's your citation and a quote.
The presiding judge of the case, Lucy Koh, rejected Samsung’s multiple motions on the matter, because they were filed too late in the discovery stage (the stage when the two parties in a trial submit their evidence).
There's a point that I'll admit I didn't fully research. Neither did you, or you would have mentioned it in your response to my post.
That point is: Samsung *did* submit the evidence in time, but it was rejected for being submitted late in discovery. It was only submitted late in discovery because it was in response to Apple's own late submission.
Evidence submitted within the allotted timeframe for discover and still rejected, read up, that's what actually happened, and that is grounds for an appeal, if not a mistrial.
Moreso, I will admit that I spoke before fully researching this matter. The evidence certainly should have been allowed, as it was submitted, albeit late in the process, during the allotted discover timeframe. As for why it was submitted late, it was in response to Apple's own late submission.
You're missingthe same detail that I was, until recently, also missing. Apparently, Apple introduced the F700 late in discover and Samsung countered by attempting to introduce the barred documents shortly after, still within the required timeframe. Samsung was working under the confines of rule 26(a), Koh is not following 37.
Burden of proof? The burden of making me truly care enough to educate you is on your side. You're being willfuly ignorant, so that's quite some burden you've got, there. I can waste my time quoting law to you, or I can let the trial play out, as it will do regardless of my actions, and let you see for yourself.
Yes, you are correct. but, when Apple introduced the F700, the very evidence Samsung was barred from introducing, it became fair game for Samsung, under the same rule that barred them from introducing it initially.
In fact, Samsung developed many of the processes and parts that made Apple's iPhone design possible. They, in large part, made the iPhone's design possible. It wasn't until they developed the technologies to make such designs possible that they were, themselves, able to make products modeled after such designs. How do people not get that?
It's excellend grounds. Once something is introduced as evidence, it's fair game for both sides to do with it what they will. Samsung missed a deadline and was barred from introducing the F700, and rightly so; however, once Apple introduced it, it became fair game for Samsung to discuss. They're not being allowed due process with reegard to the evidence presented by their opponent. That's clear judicial bias, the strongest grounds an appeal can stand on.
It's either allowed or disallowed. Once it's in, it's fair game for both sides. If Samsung enters something into evidence, Apple cna play on it; why does the same not apply for Samsung regarding Apple's exhibits? That's how the system works. Samsung was barred from *introducing* it because they were late in submitting it; Apple introduced it, it's fair game for both sides, now. Have you ever even set foot in a courtroom?
It's perfectly justified to exclude it for both parties. Once it's allowed for one, but not the other, it's a display of judicial bias, grounds for appeal.
The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience*, that's because Ford puts out a cheaper, higher quality vehicle than Mercedes, with all the features people are looking for. This may or may not have always been the case, but it is certainly true, today, that Mercedes is largely trading on its name.
* Experience: Friends and neighbors who own both (there are a lot of Mercedes in my city, as well, as it's an affluent part of the SF Bay Area). Fords simply require fewer repairs, seem to handle better, and, in some cases (Ford's higher-end models), go faster than Mercedes, at a fraction of the price. Maybe the Ford owners are just better drivers, but the ride from most Fords I've been in is nicer than the ride from most Mercedes, as well; either the product is just better, or the driver is more knowledgeable, thus likely to pick the better product; do you see where this is going?
There is no big 'conspiracy' why Apple products are winning...
Apple products are winning?
...shoving 'specs' out is not how you win the Tablet game....
Oh, you're referring to tablets, good, because there are more Android phones out there than there are iPhones; Samsung, alone, sells twice as many Android phones as Apple does iPhones.
...Apple knows what most people want, Android does not.
Apple knows what Apple fans want; by and far, in the iOS vs. Android war you seem to think is being fought, people want Android, by sales numbers. Further, Android doesn't know what anyone wants, but Google's apparently got a decent idea, as do Morotola, HP, Acer, Archos, Sony, HTC, LG, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Samsung. By and far, these companies outsell Apple and it's not because Apple knows better than they do what their customers want.
You know it, I know it, a handful of other people here know it, but some people just won't get it until it happens. I'm giving up, for now; for your sanity, you should do the same.
I'm sorry, but how long did Apple think it took Samsung to design and manufacture the F700 they demoed in February of 2007?
Let's attack this from a different angle, then... Unless Apple is positing that the F700 was slammed together in under a month, they are fully aware that the phone was designed and in production long before anyone outside of Apple ever saw an iPhone. At that point, Apple must have been aware of the 2006 design patent and, so sure of their case, have already been prepared for those facts to come up in open court. The internal documents obviously existed, whether they were presented at discovery or not, and Apple was certainly aware of them, as they were certainly aware of the 2006 design patent, and this obvious awareness of the documents covers them for use in the trial once Apple opens the door for discussion of the F700, which they did.
Thank you for that additional link, however; I'm sure I'll find the content most enlightening.
I've just noticed that, in the majority of the posts where I meant to use the term "discovery", I typo'd "discover". I'd like to blame the "y" key on my keyboard, but it appears to be working just fine. Damn.
You missed the point. I wasn't seriously saying we (or anyone) should fram you for anything, I was applying your own logic to you. Samsung did not fail in this regard, the judge did; Samsung got their submission in as quickly as reasonably possible after Apple's late submission, still during discovery but close enough that the judge was able to deny them. There was no failing on Samsung's part, the judge is screwing them.
If you weren't allowed to examine the murder weapon until the end of the discovery period, there's no way you could submit your own evidence early enough that the judge could not also throw it out, as Koh did. Likewise, you would be just as entitled (and justified in doing so) to appeal any jury decision as Samsung is.
That said, given items 4 and 5, item 1 should be trivial; if item 2 were the target of the crime, 3, 6, and 7 are meaningless.
Read: "in the discovery stage", the discovery stage being the time during which both parties can enter exhibits into evidence. The only real "too late" in discover is when it's over, though a judge can, as Koh did in this case, disallow evidence if it is brought in near the end of discovery. However, this is only supposed to be done if it is wholely new evidence, completely unknown to the other party, which the other party would require time to investigate. Since Samsung's filing was in response to Apple's filing regarding the F700, Apple was clearly aware of the F700 and this was not wholely new evidence, therefore it should not have been barred.
According to the rules of discovery, you must present your evidence *before* the trial. So, let's have it.
Their late-submitted evidence is counter-evidence to Apple's own late submission. It was actually submitted on time, but close enough to the deadline that Koh was allowed to declare it inadmissable.
Apple introduced it late in discovery. Samsung countered by introducing their documents, later in discover (but still during discovery) only due to Apple's own late submission. Lucy Koh threw it out because it was submitted at the last minute, despite the fact that it was submitted the moment it became relevant.
Apple didn't bring this in after discovery; of course, neither did Samsung, but it was still not allowed.
I know! Let's frame Deorus for murder! It's a slam dunk! I'll get the prosecutor to enter their analysis of the murder weapon into evidence at the end of the discover period, so that Deorus' lawyers don't have time to enter their own analysis. Then, when his lawyers try to argue that there's no way he ever touched that weapon, the judge can tell them to go take a leap. Hell, they won't even be able to counter when the prosecution presents their own analysis of the weapon.
Wait, that's not how it works? You mean to tell me that once the prosecution makes reference to the weapon, the defense is allowed to do the same? Wait, does civil court work the same way? It does? Then Deorus is either ignorant, trolling, or both?
Interesting.
It was submitted in response to Apple's late submission. Had the late Apple submission not included the F700, or not been accepted, Samsung would not have made their submission.
/me looks at address bar
Hmm, so this isn't Wikipedia, then? But, I digress, here's your citation and a quote.
The presiding judge of the case, Lucy Koh, rejected Samsung’s multiple motions on the matter, because they were filed too late in the discovery stage (the stage when the two parties in a trial submit their evidence).
There's a point that I'll admit I didn't fully research. Neither did you, or you would have mentioned it in your response to my post.
That point is: Samsung *did* submit the evidence in time, but it was rejected for being submitted late in discovery. It was only submitted late in discovery because it was in response to Apple's own late submission.
Evidence submitted within the allotted timeframe for discover and still rejected, read up, that's what actually happened, and that is grounds for an appeal, if not a mistrial.
Moreso, I will admit that I spoke before fully researching this matter. The evidence certainly should have been allowed, as it was submitted, albeit late in the process, during the allotted discover timeframe. As for why it was submitted late, it was in response to Apple's own late submission.
You're missingthe same detail that I was, until recently, also missing. Apparently, Apple introduced the F700 late in discover and Samsung countered by attempting to introduce the barred documents shortly after, still within the required timeframe. Samsung was working under the confines of rule 26(a), Koh is not following 37.
Burden of proof? The burden of making me truly care enough to educate you is on your side. You're being willfuly ignorant, so that's quite some burden you've got, there. I can waste my time quoting law to you, or I can let the trial play out, as it will do regardless of my actions, and let you see for yourself.
Samsing wasn't allowed to introduce it because they missed the deadline. Apple introduced it. Grab a law book.
Yes, you are correct. but, when Apple introduced the F700, the very evidence Samsung was barred from introducing, it became fair game for Samsung, under the same rule that barred them from introducing it initially.
In fact, Samsung developed many of the processes and parts that made Apple's iPhone design possible. They, in large part, made the iPhone's design possible. It wasn't until they developed the technologies to make such designs possible that they were, themselves, able to make products modeled after such designs. How do people not get that?
It's excellend grounds. Once something is introduced as evidence, it's fair game for both sides to do with it what they will. Samsung missed a deadline and was barred from introducing the F700, and rightly so; however, once Apple introduced it, it became fair game for Samsung to discuss. They're not being allowed due process with reegard to the evidence presented by their opponent. That's clear judicial bias, the strongest grounds an appeal can stand on.
It's either allowed or disallowed. Once it's in, it's fair game for both sides. If Samsung enters something into evidence, Apple cna play on it; why does the same not apply for Samsung regarding Apple's exhibits? That's how the system works. Samsung was barred from *introducing* it because they were late in submitting it; Apple introduced it, it's fair game for both sides, now. Have you ever even set foot in a courtroom?
Maybe I shoyld pay more atention to usernames.... now that you point it out, I'm gonna go with yeah...
It's perfectly justified to exclude it for both parties. Once it's allowed for one, but not the other, it's a display of judicial bias, grounds for appeal.
The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.