x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






Certain evidence in Apple-Samsung case was skewed toward Apple

0. phoneArena 09 Oct 2012, 01:54 posted on

Recently released documents from the U.S. District Court that oversaw the Apple-Samsung patent trial suggest that some of the evidence might have been skewed to favor Apple; the latter decided to pick certain phrases from long quotes that backed its position...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:02 33

1. joseph98 (Posts: 167; Member since: 03 Feb 2012)


After 8 months of owning my galaxy note now I know it is Samsung. I thought I bought apple note. Come on has anybody bought Samsung phones in mistake he thought it was apple.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:07 34

7. Stuntman (Posts: 836; Member since: 01 Aug 2011)


Exactly. I walked into a Samsung store and bought the SGS3 because I thought it was an iPhone. :)

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:16 24

8. Doakie (Posts: 2109; Member since: 06 May 2009)


Wait so you're telling me that my Galaxy S 3 wasn't made by Apple? I'm going to sue this Samsung who made such a great knockoff.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 03:11 24

15. whysoserious (Posts: 318; Member since: 20 Jul 2012)


Wait, what?! That phone with a bigger AMOLED screen with a Samsung logo in front is not an iPhone?!? Damn you Samsung!

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 07:50 11

28. PhenomFaz (Posts: 1236; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)


Yeah Samsung made a knock-off that actually performs better than the original iPhone!
How dare they make it better, more functional and simply more awesome than the original!

Apple should sue Samsung for pure awesomeness :)

posted on 10 Oct 2012, 12:35

52. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)


Ive bought one tiny and one big sh*t thought it was an iPhone and an iPad...

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 03:01 1

13. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Yup-per. Didn't Sammy negotiate the rights to build (and sell) versions of the iPhone with screen sizes larger than 4 inches? It was all part of the deal where Sammy agreed to supply Apple with the chipset for the iToys.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 04:38

17. Sprissy (Posts: 172; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)


Really????? Are you blind....GS3 has Samsung right on top the screen....hello that's a pretty good sign that it's not an iPhone.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:23 14

31. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)


Sarcasm is a foreign language to you isn't it?

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 04:38 7

19. angelesmec (unregistered)


I can understand that an average consumer might think that an iPhone was mistaken for a Samsung phone although they are very different in most design cues but seeing the Samsung logo and still thinking that it was an iPhone and purchasing it was really a foolish

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 04:39 1

20. angelesmec (unregistered)


I can understand that an average consumer might think that an iPhone was mistaken for a Samsung phone although they are very different in most design cues but seeing the Samsung logo and still thinking that it was an iPhone and purchasing it was really a foolish act. common sense people.. sorry for the term used.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 06:06 28

23. TheLibertine (Posts: 484; Member since: 15 Jan 2012)


I buyed a Samsung TV thinking it was an iPhone...

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:51 10

36. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)


You must be thinking its the new 55" iPOD XXXXXL lol:)

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 09:48 4

38. d3nster (Posts: 5; Member since: 02 Oct 2012)


bahahahahaha!!

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:07 5

29. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)


what the hell.. I have always been using my phone thinking its an iNexus designed in california:)

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:54 3

12. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)


Agreed

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 04:38 9

18. MeoCao (unregistered)


The jury is biased so they didn't care much about the facts anyway.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 05:26 9

22. doejon (Posts: 398; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)


whaaaaaaaaaaaat i thought my device with my msdcard and removable battery is an iphone - damn i got punkd┬┤

posted on 10 Oct 2012, 12:34

51. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)


.......

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:02 21

2. nasznjoka (Posts: 402; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)


Screw icrap

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:03 17

3. hateftotti (Posts: 202; Member since: 03 May 2011)


Go to hell apple...

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:03 26

4. neutralguy (Posts: 1152; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)


what samsung needed were good attorneys/lawyers. That's all.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 03:03 9

14. zibbyzib2000 (Posts: 221; Member since: 18 Nov 2010)


Agreed :l

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:04 10

5. plgladio (Posts: 314; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)


Only way to win a good person is to do cheat..

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:07 16

6. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


wow...why did no one speak up about this? it's like Samsung's Attorneys slept through the whole trial. _-_

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 02:24 9

10. Doakie (Posts: 2109; Member since: 06 May 2009)


Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing. Samsung should have spent $250 million on lawyers...

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 07:29 4

26. protozeloz (Posts: 5396; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)


actually if no mistaken they were not allowed to do so either to call on an extra witness or show other devices and proof

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:12 7

30. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


they werent allowed to call on Shin or present certain very obvious pieces of evidence, but when this quote was read to the jury, samsung's lawyers should have still stood up and called BS. They had the trial stacked against them unfairly, but they also made some pretty big bonehead mistakes for a law firm representing such a big client.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:29 4

32. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)


I agree Remix, I also feel koh should not have been allowed to oversee this case because of her ties to the firm that represented Apple.

posted on 09 Oct 2012, 08:49 3

34. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


park hit the nail on the head...OWWW!!
Yeah, having a judge oversee this trial - one that has ties to APPLE - that in itself is grounds for a re-trial. What is wrong with our system of justice for overlooking something so obvious such as this?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories