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






Jury foreman in Apple-Samsung patent case answers back

0. phoneArena 05 Oct 2012, 12:55 posted on

Samsung has requested a new trial from the U.S. District Court where a jury ruled in favor of Apple to the tuner of a $1.05 billion verdict; Samsung claims that the jury foreman was biased and used incorrect legal standards while leading the other jurors during deliberations...

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

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 02:05 1

61. kach22 (Posts: 153; Member since: 04 Nov 2011)


@AppleConspiracy::
Trying so hard to fool people around. Well it's not working. You can only fool who are apple followers with inflated self image.
By the way do you know you are beginning to sound very desparate and pathetic trying to fight a lost cause.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:03 4

32. Aeires (unregistered)


Wow, what a closed minded statement. You should look up the word "copy" in the dictionary. It doesn't mention anything about the level of success the original has.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:11 2

36. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"One does not simply copy anything. Only what is successful."

Based on assumptions.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:12 2

37. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Based on knowledge.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:26 2

42. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Your statement about popularity and copy was only assumption which was based on theory but that doesn't prove that it is 100% true it is still only assumption.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 01:38 1

60. predator93 (Posts: 122; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)


Most of your comments used to make sense, but definitely no this one. Unsuccessful ideas can also be copied and made successful. Most of the touchscreen phones before Iphone were unsuccessful that didn't stop Apple from making a touch screen phone.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 03:20

67. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Yes, but there is nothing in common with touchscreen phones before iPhone and iPhone.

It looks like that only if you are reducing the smarpthone on the fact that it has touchscreen. Reduction is never good, you need to look at the big picture, the whole.

Apple did not copied anything. They used existing technologies and concepts to make something entirely new and irreducible to previous solutions.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 11:46

76. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"Yes, but there is nothing in common with touchscreen phones before iPhone and iPhone."

Not truth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:49 3

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


It doesn't have to revolutionize an industry. The revolutionize an industry issue is just a red herring that AppleConspiracy is throwing out to confuse things.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 20:10

56. someones4 (Posts: 625; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)


You are arguing with steve jobs himself. how can you win?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:34 1

20. tedkord (Posts: 12245; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


It didn't matter if it revolutionized the industry, according to patent and trade dress law, if it resisted prior, future patents and trade dress are null.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:02 2

31. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Your statement is only assumption. Maybe LG Prada doesn't revolutionized the Industry but that doesn't proves that LG Prada wasn't copied!

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:13 2

38. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Check one of my posts above this one.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:29 1

44. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Checked and still any actual proofs only assumption.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 18:06 2

53. Hemlocke (unregistered)


WTF? You do realize that Apple filed with the FCC in 2006 for the original iPhone and had been working on it for three years by the time they unveiled it? That's some good copying, especially for a company that wasn't even in the mobile industry at the time. Why do you think LG never filed a lawsuit, after initially threatening? They found out that the iPhone patents predated the Prada.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 03:17

66. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


I didn't even know that. I was presuming such a thing, because it's obvious from the design language of iPhone itself.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:17 3

11. wolstenbeast (Posts: 25; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)


Baaaaa Humbug!

To Quote Charles d**kens!

The Jury was directed by the Judge to consider the prior art defense (the most commonly used defense in patent litigation), Hogan steered the jury away from considering this aspect of Samsung's defense. Whether this was maliciously done, or simply an act of unmitigated hubris on Hogan's behalf will always be a matter of speculation.
However, his comments re he answered all questions asked, is disingenuous at the very least, because all jurors were asked to fully disclose any information that may lead cause to doubt impartiality (standard jury briefing question).
If Hogan believes that his prior contact with Samsung's subsidiary, was not a factor himself, he was still oath bound to declare it and allow the litigants to argue his suitability as a juror.
Hogan is continuing to provide more and more ammunition to Samsung, every time he opens his mouth.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:57 4

28. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"Samsung obviously and shamelessly copied Apple and got rich."

Samsung was rich even before smartphones era.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:00 2

30. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Nokia was even richier.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:04 6

33. Aeires (unregistered)


Irrelevant.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:34 2

45. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Your statement was that Samsung has copied Apple and become rich. My statement was that Samsung was rich even before smartphones era. What Nokia has to do with these two statements?

Remember that Samsung is based not only on phones so I'm pretty sure that your statement about who was richer Samsung or Nokia is wrong.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 02:55

65. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Nokia was rich that no one could predict they will go down to the ground in just two years.

That's because they didn't want to copy Apple.

It is the faith of almost all who tried to be different (HTC, SonyEricsson, BB...).

Because iPhone was the only percievable smartphone of the time, and competition did not have the true answer yet. Android was far from perfect, and Samsung has decided to go with the copy. It paid off.

So, I think Samsung should get even greater punishment.
1 bilion is not enough. They made incomparably larger profits with this copying of Apple. This copying was still a good decision, even with this fine. So the fine should be even greater, to make them think about copying again.

Of course Apple is damaged.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 04:17 1

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


yes, apple the worlds most profitable company is damaged by samsung's use of rounded rectangles. Can you please prove that? Even Apple couldnt actually prove it. Their argument was that every SGS1 was a sale for an iphone, but the buyer was confused. I have an SGS1 and I used to sell tons of them. Not one person was confused and thought it was an iPhone.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 04:28

70. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Of course. The argument of "confused buyer" does not make any sense.

No one was confused. However, it was something there that is invisible to most people.

Samsung has become "visible" with iPhone resemblance. If they just provided the better phone, they wouldn't be visible. But with copying iPhone, they could actually be percieved as worthy competition.

You need to understand how buyers' brains work (although you think that you know, but I meant on general scale of mass market, not individual). For them, it was the iPhone that is better and cheaper than iPhone, they were never confused, but the galaxy S belonged to same paradigm of iPhone. It was "visible" in most abstract sense.

Now, it's not a problem. Two years from then masses have developed a no-iPhone sense of competition. Thing don't have to look like iPhone anymore to be visible. The new paradigm of Android had emerged.

Apple is damaged, alright. It's not so visible now, but i t will be. Events that are taking place are here becuse Samsung initially copied Apple and constituted itself as a cult value, that has its trace only now, not then.
It's not important that they are now the richest company in the world. The point is that competition could eventually endanger them because of momentum generated back then, and that was something illegal. Just please don't initiate "they deserved it" argument, because it's irrelevant for this case.

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 09:53

74. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Didn't answered to my question, again just a pouring from empty to full of holes and nothing more...

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 10:43 2

75. joey_sfb (Posts: 6014; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)


a guy with an apple icon arguing till the face turns blue about punishing samsung for copying apple but the article is not about samsung has wronged apple, its about whether the jury foreman is biased.

if he is not bias then i think the word "bias" require a new definition.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:26 1

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


talkin outta your a$$ as usual

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 17:12 1

52. structureman116 (Posts: 139; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)


Haha...clearly you are an apple fanboy...yon can't think for yourself...you only think what Apple tells you to think. Clearly there was prior art and clearly you're an idiot!

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 22:35 1

57. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)


Dear mr. Appleconspiracy, you broke my heart today, I actually tought you where a really inteligent person that usually makes brilliant comments, aparenty I was wrong, you're just another one in the apple team. Prior art? It obviously exist, the prada affair? I'm sorry, I tought we where talking about revolution and not trends and sales numbers, the first iphone wasn't that different in terms of funcionality... And about the ads... apple started it, against microsoft, so why everybody feels that now is dirty because samsung does it too? And so on... I'm sorry but unfortunatelly I was wrong, you're really just another one...

posted on 06 Oct 2012, 04:20 1

69. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Sorry to dissapoint you. I came here two years ago and everytime I said Apple is manipulative company I was bombed with criticism. Now it seems I was wrong. The mass is manipulated by forces that don't belong to Apple or anything else, and because of this forces I'm now called to defend Apple. Because in this particular point Samsung was wrong. The rest is overblown, and fanboys are everywhere - and they are now defined as Apple haters. They learned what media told them, and now it is the message that Apple is evil. And everyone who defends Apple's attitudes is now quilty. It look like a medieval age, when paesants went wild with torches on someone who looked like a witch. This is the ultimate mechanics of mediasphere.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories