The Chinese love everything American. Being an "American" company is actually a big advantage.
MotionMan
There will always be the wide-eyed kids who hawk their innards for an iPhone, of course, but as China's middle class continues to expand and conditions in the country itself further improve, Western products will cease enjoying automatic status symbol positioning and Apple won't be able to shift units just by virtue of its name.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-tech-companies-suing-theyre.html
He said it's "pretty crazy" to patent such smartphone design features as bounce-back and icons on grids, which were done decades ago on computers, and devices with rounded corners, a shape familiar to anyone who has ever held a stone.
are you another apple cultist?
Why? Because I disagree with your last several conclusions? It doesn't take much to be labelled a fanboy anymore does it.
If you disagree with Apple-bashers, you are automatically labeled an Apple Fanboy and part of the Apple Team.
MotionMan
Maybe you guys should consider not doing a self parody.
Maybe you guys should consider not doing a self parody.
Apple steals other people's ideas, patents it, and sues other companies. Yes, i would call them a patent troll.
Older folks are usually more technologically illierate. These are the people that annoyed me to no end when i worked in tech support. "HURRRRRRRR how do i turn on my computer?" These are the people i would usually recommend an iphone for.
I don't see how any Apple fan can read this and conclude that the Jury reached a fair decision. This was a complete farce.
IDIOTS
And funny thing about all this talk about innovation: Apple doesn't really innovate at all. They just take other people's ideas and call it their own. It has a fantastic marketing department though.
Judge Koh is a complete retard. Wish this was handled by Judge Posner instead. It's amazing that Apple lost in European courts but won here. What an embarrassment for our legal system. Can't wait until Apple has to put up on it's UK website that Samsung didn't copy them.
If Judge Koh doesn't overturn this decision, then our legal system is a joke.
Apple patented ideas from the sweat of other men and is aggressively attacking others that use the same idea. There's something unsavory about that.
The retard Jury foreman keeps opening his stupid mouth and inserting his foot. If this continues on, Judge Koh will HAVE to overturn this atrocity of a verdict.
The Chinese love everything American. Being an "American" company is actually a big advantage.
MotionMan
Self Parody? Have you read your own posts in this thread? I'll quote some of your 'insightful' observations below.
I think your reality distortion field is full of errors. You can't possibly think everyone else is an idiot. Everyone except you of course!
Why aren't you the judge jury and executioner! Your 'insight' have been nothing short of laughable. Attack everyone! Every person involved is stupid! Idiots!
d[-.-]b" post="407190829 said:http://gizmodo.com/5940257/ask-apple-vs-samsung-jury-foreman-velvin-hogan-whatever-you-want
Apparently the jury foreman did an AMA on Gizmodo. Reading through it, the guy seems incredibly inept at coming across as intelligent and logical. Some of my favorite parts were:
"What do you think of the Galaxy Nexus?"
"I do not use tablets."
and
"Why didn't you consider prior art?"
"it's not my job to consider prior art"
The last one wasn't a direct quote, but a summary of all his responses to that question. He completely ignored anyone responding to his answers, like the people bringing up the point about interchangeability not being a necessity in considering prior art.
The popular American brands in China would be KFC, Nike, Coke, and Starbucks. Apple products are popular fashionable items, but Samsung has taken over in terms of sales and a lot of the Chinese consumers prefer the bigger screens.
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/wor...-open-door-for-samsung-other-rivals-1.3859713
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/26/china-smartphone-sales-q2-2012-lenovo-apple/
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120904PD206.html
"Why didn't you consider prior art?"
"it's not my job to consider prior art"
The last one wasn't a direct quote, but a summary of all his responses to that question.
I'm going to quote someone on another forum reading this:
"Why didn't you consider prior art?"
"it's not my job to consider prior art"
Roocer5 hours agoShare
Can you briefly summarize why "Prior Art" was not applicable in this court case?
Reply
Velvin Hogan@Roocer4 hours agoShare
Prior art was presented, what you must understand it did not pass the legal test given us by the judge under the current statues in the patent law as it is today.
I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents.
That last part (as you noted) wasn't a direct quote but a "summary" or "personal spin" or whatever you want to call it. Here's what I found when searching for prior art in that AMA.
I don't know much about law but apparantly there was a strong enough argument presented that caused prior art to be non-applicable. That's a very different statement than the "summary".
Edit: Heh, ok I guess I type too slow.
And I found the legal test later in the AMA (he really needs to work on his typing)
Did you notice that prior art can be a piece of paper describing the invention? It doesn't have to run on *any* processor. It's the claims that have to match, not what it runs on. For example, when Red Hat was accused of patent infringement by IP Innovation, they rolled in a 1985 Amiga computer that a Groklaw reader still have running to demonstrate prior art, and they won. Otherwise, by his logic, Samsung couldn't infringe any of Apple's patents, in that Android and Linux don't run directly on iOS.
The foreman, in answering criticisms, says that the jury paid close attention to the jury instructions. But looking at this one, did they? I'm sure they meant to, and I'm also sure they did their best according to what they understood. But this was an error, and it's one I don't think the judge can ignore, if anyone brings it to her attention. Incidentally, just in case he said prior art and he meant obviousness, the jury instruction on that is No. 33.
Let's look at some details. The foreman says that the jury started out in a stalemate, because some on the jury were not clear how prior art can invalidate a patent. At that point, he thought it was going Samsung's way. So he went home and had his aha moment. He felt he could defend it if it was his patent. So he explained it all to the jury. And that turned the tide. But if he told them that interchangeability was a requirement for prior art, he goofed big time.
This thread needs to be locked we have rabid Android fanatics (like puddle jumper), angry Android fanatics (like phokus) and previously banned but regurgitated Samscum fanatics (like Platinum Rice) stinking up the thread. Some are so upset about the verdict that they are either lying or spamming the thread with useless articles from elsewhere...
I'm sure that those lovely, completely non incendiary terms will help.
Of course he was completely wrong about the interchangeability requirement.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
This thread needs to be locked we have rabid Android fanatics (like puddle jumper), angry Android fanatics (like phokus) and previously banned but regurgitated Samscum fanatics (like Platinum Rice) stinking up the thread. Some are so upset about the verdict that they are either lying or spamming the thread with useless articles from elsewhere...
Heh, that's interesting news. I was on a jury once and I swear sometimes I wish I had a professor to explain the law and instructions to me. There was very little to no opportunity for the juror to ask for clarification on "what does this line of the law mean". Mostly because it seems that "interpretation of the law" is up to what the lawyers try to paint them as.
Just reading the instructions for prior art (in the link) is enough for my eyes to gloss over. Without help, I'd also have problems trying to figure out what the legal test for prior art would be.