Judge Koh rules against three Samsung motions

26. Mxyzptlk posted on 03 Aug 2012, 01:56 7 19

She is doing what is right.

38. anywherehome posted on 03 Aug 2012, 07:27 0 1

just in the right of the Money, so I agree with you
and because she needs money from Apple, logically she must be a bad judge when she is not able to earn money in a right way

25. Mxyzptlk posted on 03 Aug 2012, 01:55 8 15

They shouldn't have copied Apple so many times. They wouldn't even be in this debacle had they just been more original.

Cue the many thumb downs.

37. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 03 Aug 2012, 07:15 2 0

Keep telling yourself that. Apple will go after anyone they see as a threat, regardless of who they are or what designs they use.

12. RORYREVOLUTION posted on 03 Aug 2012, 00:28 12 6

There's no doubt in my mind she is. I'm not going to resort to childish name calling or any stupid racist remark but I will tell you she is completely full of herself and I have no doubt in my mind she is under the table with Apple. There is no way this is a fair trial and it almost seems a pointless one. But of course, for "legal" purposes, she has to give Samsung a trial, just deny every request/remark that they make tho.

As I said before, if the competition gets banned, I know you apple fanboys love for 4GS2,3,4 devices that are all the same with a nice big fat contract price on them. But of course, you guys think you're so rich and cool so you'll have no problem with throwing away your money as long as you get your new idevice.

23. Lucas777 posted on 03 Aug 2012, 01:33 5 6

can you please explain how she is going against the rules and laws of the US judicial system?

52. cheetah2k posted on 04 Aug 2012, 08:23 0 0

Anyone with even half a brain can see there is "clear bias" going on here. Judge Koh should be dejected for this, as well as Judge Grewal for throwing forth his personal emotions to the trial being "peeved at Samsung" for the non-release of source code. How about being peeved at Apple for contempt of the court displaying images of a Galaxy Tab the same size as an iPad... Fair is fair right? Late source code or lying to the court - I dont know about you guys but I know whats worse.

• This comment is posted in response to #23 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #23 Hide

19. Droid_X_Doug posted on 03 Aug 2012, 01:25 6 1

As I have posted in numerous threads, this is staged for an appeal. There are plenty of examples of judicial error which will form the basis for an appeal by Sammy. They just need to keep putting their objections and the judge overruling their objections in the record. It is unfortunate, but sh*t happens. That is why there is a court of appeal.

Koh has been over-ruled before in this case (sales ban on G-Nexus), and it is looking like she will be over-ruled again.

27. taco50 (banned) posted on 03 Aug 2012, 02:20 2 9

She'll be overruled based on what? You have no idea what you're talking about.

31. Droid_X_Doug posted on 03 Aug 2012, 03:40 3 1

Her sales ban on the G-Nexus has been stayed through the duration of the trial. You are living a state of denial, so it is not possible to have a rational, objective conversation with you.

• This comment is posted in response to #27 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #27 Hide

15. frydaexiii posted on 03 Aug 2012, 00:49 12 6

I'm starting to think it went something like this.

Apple : Let us win and you'll be the first in the world to use the new iPhone.

Koh : *Fangasm* DOWN WITH SAMSUNG, ALL HAIL APPLE!

21. Lucas777 posted on 03 Aug 2012, 01:30 5 6

honestly its like you dont even know what is happening with this trial…

apple has the patents for this design-- those patents are debatable but that isnt what this trial is about… this trial is only whether samsung infringed on those patents… therefor space odyssey has absolutely no relevance

also if samsung is not going to follow the rules of the United States judicial system, then their evidence will be thrown out as so…

33. phitch posted on 03 Aug 2012, 04:25 2 2

But Patents only work if there is no prior art. Samsung has the right to prove prior art exists, that is what they are attempting to do. Not allowing the existence of prior art to be shown at a trial is a huge problem.

"I have a patent on something that existed before I patented it. So you copied me, just don't show anyone that I copied my design in the first place."

51. Lucas777 posted on 03 Aug 2012, 12:42 0 1

the problem is this trial has nothing to do with whether the patents are valid or not-- that is a whole separate trial… the only thing this trial is deciding is whether or not samsung inflicted said patents, legit or not

• This comment is posted in response to #33 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #33 Hide

28. taco50 (banned) posted on 03 Aug 2012, 02:22 2 9

Apple is winning

39. Rocksteady posted on 03 Aug 2012, 08:06 1 0

winning in court, maybe.
Gaining public hatred, sure.

50. taco50 (banned) posted on 03 Aug 2012, 11:35 0 1

People love Apple, Internet trolls are the only ones complaining.

• This comment is posted in response to #39 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #39 Hide

53. Rocksteady posted on 04 Aug 2012, 13:06 0 0

Can't you discuss matters in a more adult fashion?!
sheeps are all over the place.

• This comment is posted in response to #50 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #50 Hide

32. frydaexiii posted on 03 Aug 2012, 04:04 5 3

Yeah? An idiot like you might not know this, but these news is just giving Samsung some free publicity, and I don't mean just in the US, it's in newspapers everywhere in the world.

People who originally did not even consider Samsung are now wondering, "Why would Apple sue them? They must be pretty good." and "Apple's trying to ban Samsung's phones? I should give them a look."

42. roscuthiii posted on 03 Aug 2012, 09:03 1 0

Yes, it's a little thing called 'prior art'. Since Apple's case is fundamentally a design patent, the 'art' part of prior art is pretty significant.
Koh's blatant bias is also pretty significant. But hey, US justice... best justice money can buy.

43. MartyK posted on 03 Aug 2012, 09:03 0 0

It's call "PRIOR ART" (Google or dictionary those two word) or Samsung F700 or SONY-Style phone..are you reading anything Samsung is claiming?

46. Quezdagreat posted on 03 Aug 2012, 09:16 0 0

I don't care what they're claiming because I know they copy other companies ideas and if you think Samsung never copied anything, you are a idiot

47. burnab87 posted on 03 Aug 2012, 10:53 0 0

Yea you really are stupid. They're proving that apple copied other designs, but the judge will have not acceptance of hearing that the prio art exist. Apple copied samsung copied the whole world copies. But the fact of the matter is that the more she denies the more it hurts apple. If she would allow all evidence and this rtial is a win for apple it ends any chance of an appeal. And nips this all in the bud hear and now. So yes she is stupid and so is apple's lawyers for allowing her to countinue with all these denying evidence. Every patent apple has filed since 2004 is a copy of prior works.

• This comment is posted in response to #46 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #46 Hide

49. Quezdagreat posted on 03 Aug 2012, 11:01 0 0

if apple copied them, why aren't they taking apple to court? this is about Samsung copying apple and apple actually having patents for the things Samsung copied.

• This comment is posted in response to #47 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #47 Hide