68 replies to this topic

[.fahim]

Vice, on 02 August 2012 - 18:21, said:

I hope Apple win because of this. It will just be so hilarious to see people on here flipping out.

This!

[evo_spook]

Boz, on 02 August 2012 - 20:25, said:

Did you read anything posted here and why Judge Koh should have recused herself from this trial. She VERY much has history with both Apple (working for them) and personal gain of support of patents they are now leaning towards positive Apple verdict because she doesn't want to set a standard that will cost her private practice when she's not a judge anymore. She is a patent lawyer. Any judge with this background would have recused themselves.

And it's pretty big difference being biased for one thing or another as a person and being biased as a judge. Don't you think?

Yes, I'd trust her any day over you, who has a history of making facts up to suit the chips on your shoulder.

[rkenshin]

Whole case is garbage. Hopefully this will go as high as the Supreme Court so that the US will fix our broken patent system. That's all I care about this case. Our patent system is broken, in which anyone can patent the most simplistic thing and call it "intellectual property".

The judge has a bias towards Apple. The jury even had an ex-employee from Google and Apple. Granted they were dismissed, but you're going to tell me that out of the millions of people in California to choose from jury duty, they just "happened" to get a Google and Apple employee? BS. Besides, my belief is that both lawyers from both parties are whining idiots. Reading their responses to each other and to the judge sounds like two little kids whining to their parents over a toy.

Fix the patent system, then start protecting your intellectual property that actually is intellectual ... and not just a damn rectangle.

[Boz]

evo_spook, on 02 August 2012 - 20:35, said:

Yes, I'd trust her any day over you, who has a history of making facts up to suit the chips on your shoulder.

LOL.. I make up facts.. priceless

[z0phi3l]

Boz, on 02 August 2012 - 22:03, said:

LOL.. I make up facts.. priceless

When all else fails blame the victim!!!

[evo_spook]

Boz, on 02 August 2012 - 22:03, said:

LOL.. I make up facts.. priceless

You have a short memory? Every thread you create you get called out on.

[Boz]

evo_spook, on 02 August 2012 - 22:07, said:

You have a short memory? Every thread you create you get called out on.

By you maybe. Not sure how that fits into making up facts. Just because you don't agree with facts and you want reality to be something different is a whole different thing.

rkenshin, on 02 August 2012 - 20:57, said:

Reading their responses to each other and to the judge sounds like two little kids whining to their parents over a toy.

Apple's "evidence" is like a fanboy blog post very little to do with actual evidence. You should read their deposition. It's hilarious.

[aviator189]

this judge is all bs.

[Singh400]

Frankly as things stand, Apple are more likely to get this verdict because of what Samsung did...

They shot themselves in the foot!

[ichi]

Singh400, on 02 August 2012 - 22:51, said:

Frankly as things stand, Apple are more likely to get this verdict because of what Samsung did...

They shot themselves in the foot!

Maybe, but that would be quite childish on the Judge's part. It was the Judge who enforced an open trial, she can't come back later and cry because docs go in the open.

Docket 1256: "The whole trial is going to be open."
Docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default."

You have to wonder what's exactly Judge Koh's issue with what Samsung did and what's the basis for Apple to ask for the case to be dismissed.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

"Big Brother" up to their old tricks again.

[Argote]

Conveniently setting a precedent that if ANY evidence is leaked then the case is thrown in your favor... This could become QUITE the common occurrence...

[margrave]

I have little respect for Judge Lucy Koh given her past with apple.

Apple is just annoying now...

[Boz]

margrave, on 02 August 2012 - 23:54, said:

I have little respect for Judge Lucy Koh given her past with apple.

Apple is just annoying now...

She's the same judge who raised iPad and Samsung tablet and asked lawyer to identify them by covering the logo and showing them only front of the device. Judges like her need to be removed from the system.

From the 2011 trial:

Quote

Kathleen M. Sullivan, a Quinn Emanuel partner speaking on behalf of Samsung, pointed out to the judge that all kinds of devices predating Apple’s products—phones and tablets—look, and in some regards, work like the iPhone and iPad. Apple is seeking an unjust monopoly on rectangular smartphones and tablets with a flat surface and rounded corners, Sullivan said.

Judge Koh interrupted at one point and held up the competing Samsung and Apple tablets. Could Sullivan tell them apart?

“Not at this distance, your honor,” the lawyer admitted.

“All right, I’ll bring it up closer,” the judge said. “Which one is which?”

Finally, Sullivan correctly identified the iPad.

“It took a long time to make that distinction,” the judge said. Her point was that inattentive consumers might confuse the Samsung for an Apple. Consumer confusion is an important criterion in determining whether patent infringement has occurred.

“Your Honor,” Sullivan protested, “with respect, I’m standing far away from you and you covered up the brand logo. … [T]he D’889 patent is for the whole device, and you didn’t show us the back.”

[resol612]

ichi, on 02 August 2012 - 18:45, said:

Of course Apple would try this, but it's a load of bull. Read Mr Quinn's explanation of the issue and how they had every right to release that info. - No court order forbid releasing anything to anyone. - The court had actually ordered to unseal documents and keep the whole process open. - Apple themselves had realeased information before about this very case (dockets number 1428-1, 1438-2, 1429-13 and 1451). - Jury can't be influenced since they aren't allowed to read any media coverage. Why should the case be dismissed, again?

This. They simply used Lucy's own orders against her. What is she going to do now?