Google's Android is Eating Apple's Lunch

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yes, indeed you did. I never said that the judge was wrong to dismiss the appeal from Samsung for a mistrial, I said that the jury lead appeared arrogant to me and that it was wrong of him to give false information to the jury regarding prior art.

Look up sarcasm sometime and get off your high horse and read your own posts as written rather than as re-written in your mind... I read what you post and comment accordingly...
You could also try to actually quote what people say when replying rather than using the publishers "selective review technique" to apparently bolster what your saying by using around 5% of a post... especially when the quote was clearly sarcastic...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Look up sarcasm sometime and get off your high horse and read your own posts as written rather than as re-written in your mind... I read what you post and comment accordingly...
You could also try to actually quote what people say when replying rather than using the publishers "selective review technique" to apparently bolster what your saying by using around 5% of a post... especially when the quote was clearly sarcastic...

Looks like I hit a nerve

Let me dissect it for you.

Exactly. [1]He strikes me as a very arrogant person, presuming to know the law better than lawyers/judges, and assuming the role of leader in deliberations, [2]misleading the jury into thinking that prior art didn't apply because [3] "it does not run on the same hardware". [4]I do not presume to know whether this is basis for mistrial, [5]but it's certainly wrong.

[1]: I think the jury foreman is arrogant
[2]: he misled the jury with wrong information regarding prior art
[3]: I detail how he misled the jury
[4]: IANAL
[5]: misleading the jury is wrong (feel free disagree)

As you can see, I never said, or hinted, that the judge decision to deny mistrial was wrong.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

Looks like I hit a nerve

Let me dissect it for you.



[1]: I think the jury foreman is arrogant
[2]: he misled the jury with wrong information regarding prior art
[3]: I detail how he misled the jury
[4]: IANAL
[5]: misleading the jury is wrong (feel free disagree)

As you can see, I never said, or hinted, that the judge decision to deny mistrial was wrong.

Actually you did strike a nerve... you came across as an arrogant person who believes his interpretations of messily reported events should be better than those of a duly appointed judge... not being familiar with every acronym used by people who assume that the world knows 'em all, was disappointed to find out what it actually meant... and now I have to discontinue before someone does something here that we are not allowed to discuss...

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Despite PatNY's laughable hope that the US verdict would be overturned, Apple will get its $1Bn, give or take.

Well, the USPTO has invalidated Apple's "pinch to zoom" patent

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...418492784.html

and the same for "bounce back"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549

That has got to remove a big chunk from the $1B

[afv011]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Well, the USPTO has invalidated Apple's "pinch to zoom" patent

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...418492784.html

and the same for "bounce back"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549

That has got to remove a big chunk from the $1B

As good as these news are, the patents have been "tentatively invalidated", so they're not invalid, yet. But it's good to see some common sense in the USPTO, for a change.

[WT Sharpe]

This is rather disconcerting as it puts a serious damper on my plans to trademark the color "Black".

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

This is rather disconcerting as it puts a serious damper on my plans to trademark the color "Black".

You are already putting yourself in serious jeopardy for charges as Apple has patents on black and white already.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

This is rather disconcerting as it puts a serious damper on my plans to trademark the color "Black".

your ornament avatar could violate Apple apple art trademark

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by forsooth

your ornament avatar could violate Apple apple art trademark

well jingle my bells will ya!

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Despite PatNY's laughable hope that the US verdict would be overturned, Apple will get its $1Bn, give or take.

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there boy ...

It ain't over till it's over, especially in the civil courts when deep pockets are involved.

If you go back to my original statements, I presented a wide variety of potential reasons for the verdict to be overturned or drastically reduced. Since you can't recall them so well, let me enumerate them once again:

1) The trial judge could overturn the verdict based on the misconduct of the jury foreman

2) The trial judge could reduce the verdict based on jury errors

3) The case could be overturned at the appeals court level.

4) The case could go to the Supreme Court if Samsung is not successful at the appeals court.

In addition, I would think the recent invalidation of a couple of key Apple patents may ultimately put a serious crimp in the verdict if they are not reinstated.

Plus there may be other ways Samsung lawyers are attempting to have the verdict overturned/decreased.

So far only #1 has failed ... there is still a long long long way to go. Samsung may yet have the last laugh!

--Pat

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by PatNY

... there is still a long long long way to go. Samsung may yet have the last laugh!

--Pat

I don't think that, regardless of the final outcome, whichever party "wins" is going to be in a laughing mood. These kinds of deathmatches aren't good for either party.

And the most likely outcome isn't on your list: sooner or later, they will (likely) settle the case. Out of sheer exhaustion. Or the need to deal with a whole 'nother war:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-575...t-case-report/

The European Union is expected to file an antitrust case against Samsung very soon.

According to Reuters, which spoke with the European Union's European Commission competition chief Joaquin Almunia, his office will "issue a statement of objections very soon" against Samsung. Almunia didn't say what would be included in those objections, but the move follows a year-long investigation into Samsung's patent practices.

Make enough noise and soon enough, the *real* predators take note of you...

[kennyc]

but was the list made BJ or AJ?

(Before Jobs, After Jobs )

[holymadness]

Yup. The patent wars are over. Samsung already won, for what it's worth.

PatNY is like one of those Japanese soldiers marooned on an island, thinking he's still fighting for the Emperor thirty years after the war.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Well, the USPTO has invalidated Apple's "pinch to zoom" patent

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...418492784.html

and the same for "bounce back"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549

That has got to remove a big chunk from the $1B

From PC Mag today:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413450,00.asp

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

PatNY is like one of those Japanese soldiers marooned on an island, thinking he's still fighting for the Emperor thirty years after the war.

Ahhh, but in this case "Japan" has won the war, even if they might eventually lose the court battle.

--Pat