Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

And before anyone even goes there, I want to point out that I didn't say the riots were caused by the iPhone release... I just said they coincided with it.
 
John Albert said:
And before anyone even goes there, I want to point out that I didn't say the riots were caused by the iPhone release... I just said they coincided with it.
Click to expand...
I know you weren't. And who knows, maybe there was extreme pressure to up production to fill the Apple iPhone order and that helped set it off, but of course that's pure speculation on my part.
 
John Albert said:
Maybe it has something to do with the coincidence of the riots with the US release of the new iPhone?
Click to expand...

iRage: Apple's FoxConn China Plant Damaged As Riots Resume
Following the riots at Apple's FoxConn Chengdu plant in June, engadget is reporting that FoxConn's Taiyuan plant - the scene of earlier strikes over salary disputes back in March - has suffered damage as workers riot. Police are on site to control the crowd and while the motive is not clear, it is apparently unrelated to the recent anti-Japan protests. It appears - based on the clip and photos below - that much damage has been done in the process.


Nothing really to do with apple or the release of the iphone. I'll stick with my thought that the use of apple in the title is just to get page hits.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
OnlyTellsTruths said:
And now a ruling from Japan:

Samsung wins over Apple in Japan patent case

That's 1 for Apple, 1 for Samsung, and 1 Tie.... for August 2012 (I'm so not counting the hundreds of other trials between Apple and Samsung over the past couple of years).
Click to expand...

+1 more for Samsung:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rt-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html
Click to expand...


And yet another +1 for Samsung (or maybe just .5, who's keeping score* :D).

And another new addition to a lawsuit against apple is filed.

*So 2.5 Samsung, 1 Apple, 1 Tie

http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-takes-on-apples-iphone-5-as-galaxy-tab-10-1-ban-scrapped-7000005097/


Judge Lucy Koh had previously granted Apple a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and late on Monday — with Samsung pointing out that more than a month had passed since the verdict — she agreed to scrap that ban.

However, that was a relatively small event compared to Samsung taking on the iPhone 5, Apple's flagship iOS device as of September.

In a filing made on Monday, Samsung's lawyers added the iPhone 5 to a previous filing they had submitted in June. They said the alleged infringements were the same in the iPhone 5 as in previous iterations of the smartphone, and they had clearly been unable to include it in the original suit as it had not yet been launched at the time.

According to Samsung, Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch all infringe on two mobile broadband standards patents and/or six feature patents held by the Korean company.

The company has also claimed that the iPhone 5's 4G/LTE functionality infringes on its patents, but has not yet sued over those patents.
Click to expand...


It then goes on to list 8 patents (the 6 + 2 I assume...).
 
Wait, so you're using a scoring system where a billion dollar verdict is +1, and staying a preliminary injunction is also +1?

So any time a judge rules in my favor on any issue, I get a +1? Does this include approvals of document requests and experts? Or do I only get a +1 when the judge rules in my favor on something and the media reports it?

It seems if we're going to "keep score," we really ought to stick to actually dispositive verdicts on the cases -- not interim motions by the judge, even if some blogger somewhere thinks that a particular procedural ruling is newsworthy.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Wait, so you're using a scoring system where a billion dollar verdict is +1, and staying a preliminary injunction is also +1?

So any time a judge rules in my favor on any issue, I get a +1? Does this include approvals of document requests and experts? Or do I only get a +1 when the judge rules in my favor on something and the media reports it?

It seems if we're going to "keep score," we really ought to stick to actually dispositive verdicts on the cases -- not interim motions by the judge, even if some blogger somewhere thinks that a particular procedural ruling is newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Did you seriously miss the multiple lines in multiple posts of mine about how it was a joke??

Seriously??

You ignore the actual news in multiple posts and respond to the joke. Sounds like someone else I know. Heaven forbid we talk about the actual details, they may not be so favorable to Apple....
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Heaven forbid we talk about the actual details,
Click to expand...

No one here wants to talk about the actual details; they want to talk about the media spin on the details.

Any attempt to pin down the actual details by actual patent practitioners have been met with a derision only possible from polemic ignorance.

they may not be so favorable to Apple....
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, because people who prefer facts to silliness are obviously strongly in favor of whatever side the silly people oppose. That's the only reason anyone could ever disagree with your assessment, right? I couldn't have anything to do with you just not knowing what you're talking about...
 
AvalonXQ said:
I couldn't have anything to do with you just not knowing what you're talking about...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it is you that not only doesn't know why you are talking about, but doesn't know what anyone else is talking about either!
 
Well, I assume that distraction is out of the way.

Now back to the actual news?

OnlyTellsTruths said:
http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/66587-samsung-claims-apple-juror-was-biased

Samsung is attempting to have the recent $1 billion patent verdict in favor of Apple thrown out, on the basis that the foreman of the jury was biased.
Click to expand...
Semi-related posts on this foreman from earlier in the thread, starting at post #373:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8565813#post8565813
Click to expand...
 
Samsung is making the right move here -- they're going after the foreman based on his failure to disclose relevant information during jury selection.

That's very different (and a much easier sell) than trying to throw out a verdict based on the reasoning the jury used in the case. The jury is typically understood to represent a black box, and in the absence of misconduct, courts aren't usually interested in exploring jury reasoning. So if Samsung is going to try to come at the foreman, their angle of attack makes sense.

Of course if you're cynical (or a "legal realist"), this is really an opportunity for the judge to throw out the verdict based on the foreman's obviously flawed understanding of invalidity.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Of course if you're cynical (or a "legal realist"), this is really an opportunity for the judge to throw out the verdict based on the foreman's obviously flawed understanding of invalidity.
Click to expand...

Very true. Samsung's lawyers can only hope the Judge reviews everything that foreman said, just under the guise of researching their specific, legally relevant, accusations.

If the Judge does see some of those comments the foreman made, it will be very hard to forget.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Did you seriously miss the multiple lines in multiple posts of mine about how it was a joke??

Seriously??

You ignore the actual news in multiple posts and respond to the joke. Sounds like someone else I know. Heaven forbid we talk about the actual details, they may not be so favorable to Apple....
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom