Judge: There'll be no US Samsung ban, BUT no new trial with Apple either Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the US, but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its …
certainly does sound that way. I have no beef with either company but I'm not entirely happy with letting the judgement stand given the very real possibility the foreman was biased. I think it undermines the credibility of the judgement and if left alone it undermines the court. Normally judges would come down on the juror like a ton of bricks for harming the court.
Not a samsung zealot, I don't care which way the judgement went other than it should be fair. The judge issued an odd statement, she basically said yeah there are potential issues but you should have found out about them before. This is fine up to a point, yes samsung should have but when he was asked in court about lawsuits he avoided answering fully so I do have some sympathy for samsungs position. The jurors comments afterwards about his actions in the jury room also undermine the validity of the judgement. Let me be clear, I do not care if samsung win or lose at a retrial or if the judgement is increased or decreased. I do care that a court is standing by a judgement that seems unsound based on the actions of a juror with a grudge. Courts have a hell of a lot of power, as do juries, they need to be beyond reproach. Normally judges go apeshit over situations where a juror undermines the court. The judge didn't say he didn't she said it was up to you to spot it earlier. I found that pretty odd, but she seems pissed off at the whole thing and wants to move on already.
Sansungs position was, we are happy with the jury till they ruled against us, now that we lost we will will find any shit to say it's unfair, for instace someone in the jury knew the husband of a Samsung lawyer 16 years ago.
Samsung knew about the conection before the trial but they didn't bother to object, meaning they were gaming the system to use him as an excuse for a retrial incase they lost. As for undermining the validity, the judge disagrees with you as would any normal person, You say the forman has a grudge against the wife of the husband who was a samsung lawyer (neither of which worked for Samsung 16 years ago), then prove it otherwise yor just another Samsung sock puppet.
Relax a second, fwiw I thought the verdict was right but I thought the damages were high. Lay off the insults, nobody is slinging them at you :-)
What I am saying is that I found it odd that the judge said no retrial because you had your chance to find out before. She never said there wasn't an issue, she just said you should have raised it before. The problem being he was asked and worded his answer carefully to avoid telling them about the previous lawsuit. My concern isn't for Samsung or Apple, my concern is that the judge is basically saying yeah shit happens, live with it which isn't how the law works. Yes they should have found out, but the situation does colour the result somewhat which isn't a great situation. Samsung seriously needs to sack its council, especially if they appeal.
The actual issue with the foreman (as you seem to have misunderstood) was simply that seagate (samsung owns\owned approx 10% of seagate) sued the foreman in '93 over an unpaid loan and he was forced to declare himself bankrupt. Whilst it isn't proof in itself he had a grudge, the fact he worded his response carefully makes me suspicious.
@AC 17:53
The blinding obvious thing is IF the judge genuinely though he was biased she would have ruled in favour of a retrial
You seem a bit confused AC, the Judge/Court/legal process is not about justice, it's about the practice of law.
What the Judge said was the Samsung had the opportunity to question Hogan during the jury selection and having failed to reject him at that point that cannot now reject him after the fact.
The judge did not say that Hogan was not biased.
Mines the one with the pockets full of popcorn.
"Retina" is a trademark - it makes as much sense as saying no one else does Pureview cameras. And talking of a "first" makes little sense, when resolution is a quantity with a large number of possibilities - it's not an either/or. (I suppose you could say "first to make a device with a particular resolution", but there are *many* such "firsts".)
For years iphones had low resolution (my Nokia 5800 had 640x360, much higher than most phones of the time) - for some reason, this wasn't deemed a problem, until they made it their single advertising point. My Galaxy Nexus has a higher resolution than a "retina" iphone, and there are phones with higher resolution still. Many much cheaper Android tablets have higher resolution than an ipad mini.
In conclusion, there is no clear winner at all as to who leads on high resolutions.
"No there were no 'retina' type screens until Apple did it first."
I hate to break the news to you but Apple released the iPhone 4, its first 'retina' screen, in June 2010. That's a full three years after Toshiba released their Portege G900 with a 3" 800 x 480 display at 313 ppi. Of course you are free to claim that 'retina' only applies to 326 ppi or greater but that kind of kicks the iPad squarely in the nuts as it's only 264 ppi. Apple didn't do it first; the horror, the horror. No, they took the idea of high a pixel density from a phone running Windows Mobile 6 which likely explains why you never heard of it.
That raps really rather well.. well, for the first three lines (even if you kind of have to say "marketing" with two syllables):
Hello, fanboy, repeat after me
There is no such thing as a "retina" screen
It is useless marketing-speak, it means nothing
..as for "beyond retina".. optical nerve?
I agree there's no point in these super-high resolutions, but that goes for Apple too (I never understood where one is meant to get the media in such high resolutions, given that you can't even fit one Blu-Ray quality film on an entry level 16GB model, and most people won't have the mobile allowance to stream that). The point is that Apple made it their single marketing point, and Google/Samsung beat them at their own game - for those people who think "Retina" is important, the Nexus 10 beats it.
For those of us who think it isn't important, it's not a consideration in the first place - and there are many other tablets to then consider.
"Retina" is just a trademark. What the actual best resolution is is a matter of personal preference and needs.
(I'm also amused that Samsung outdoing Apple is spun as being something to criticise Samsung over.)
Maybe you have heard of a thing called software? You see for those of us who use iPads to get thing done, it's the software (Apple speach apps) that is important (small business, 3 staff plus contractors). The display makes a huge difference in the usability. It's the difference between 'this is nice' and 'this is needed'. If you want a toy to watch video then get an android or fire or a good TV but if your putting your own cash down and your expecting the device to pay for itself, then it's a retina display iPad.
Android tablets are consumer toys that geeks also like, of the people i know, a lot use android phones as well as blackberries (no one i know is going to upgrade) and iphones but no one uses Android tablets. It dosn't even come up in conversation anymore. Everyone uses Google to search but no one trust Google on tablets, we all know they don't give a fuck. Google has lost the business market by not caring, they assumed free matters, cheap matters, well in the toy world i guess thats true. But when the difference in the price of tablets is 1 maybe 2 days in a semi decent hotel (clean, quiet, comfotable), trust and commitmeant means a lot more and you don't get that with android tablets.
PS This 'you can upgrade your OS yourself' really dosn't work, i and everyone i know's prefers 'we will do that for you, you spend your time on your business'.
@AC 10:27
Wow, that's an awful lot of kool-aid you've drunk.
The answer to "It's the software" is very, very simple. Get a nexus device. They're cheaper than most of the competition (even the other android devices), they get all the software updates for Android and they outperform all of apples current offerings.
The apps are there for getting damn near anything and everything done on them. I code, manage servers on the go and even DJ at nightclubs on my Nexus 7. I've used it to write reports, RPG campaigns (google docs+drive integration is awesome for that), I can write quick apps in html5 straight to dropbox or googledrive and quickly deploy them to webservers using sftp in the ES filemanager. All of this on a non-rooted device and by the way, speech recognition software is much, much better on Android and as for Siri? Check out Google Now sometime. And then weep at the ineptitude of Siri.
Just sayin'.
As the commentards here have now found out, courts have law and precedent upon which to rely when informing judgement, and Samsung can't successfully claim mistrial because of that. And Apple have failed to lift the burden of proof necessary to win an injunction against sale.
There you have it. A simple application of well established legal principles and practice.
I assume Samsung now owe Apple a billion buckeroos
A shame really. Although I agree that samsung did infringe on those patents (personally I don't believe some of them are valid but apparently that doesn't matter) I disagree with the amount. Especially when it comes down to a point of how much the patents are worth. If there were irreperable harm caused then I could possibly understand the amount, but as the judge said, it was more like medium harm.
I hope samsung at least manage to appeal the amount even if they don't get a whole new case. 300mil would still seem more than a fair amount.
>$1.05bn plus an adjustment from the judge of up to 3x I believe (and probably interest as well by now).
Last month's 20% hike in Apple contract costs will more than cover it and Samsung's decision to cease production of Retina Displays may yet also 'bare' fruit next year....
Did you stop to consider the 20% hike may have only been for one contract and secondly what if it is actually a quantity based price - i.e. Apple are buying substantially less of a component (as sourcing it elsewhere) so the price for the ones they are buying is a bit higher. Samsung have lost Apple as a customer for most things - if not now then in the near future so I suspect it's Samsung who will lose out long term.
+20% of nothing is still nothing.
*Koh* has refused them a new trial. *Koh* has refused Apple an injunction. It's a pattern, Koh doesn't seem to like taking any action and seems to have put more effort into coercing Apple&Samsung into discussion than anything else. Predictable on the basis this was always going to appeal but still lazy and dishonest.
Now the appeal starts. That's the story here, a couple of years waiting on an appeal *with no Apple injunctions in force*. Apple must be spitting teeth right now, the win was the injunctions, to squash competition by lawsuit. Today's decision means Apple will struggle to get another injunction in an American court.
Meanwhile Hogan's misbehaviour is successfully in the record for the appeal, as are the errors in the jury decision. For Samsung this is nowhere near over, for Apple being denied injunctions mean it is all but over.
It's a pattern, Koh doesn't seem to like taking any action and seems to have put more effort into coercing Apple&Samsung into discussion than anything else. Predictable on the basis this was always going to appeal but still lazy and dishonest.
But ... Isn't trying to get people to talk to each other rather than fight it out a good thing?
Simon Harris: But ... Isn't trying to get people to talk to each other rather than fight it out a good thing?
That only works if negotiating benefits both sides. It doesn't work here because Apple thought they could get injunctions to stick and never intended negotiating over that. If Samsung couldn't negotiate that away there was little point them talking either.
What Koh persistently refused to accept was Apples plain language: that they weren't interested in licensing, just in removing Samsung from their market. There was never any talk to be had and Koh must have known that.
You Apply fanbois need to check in with HQ more often. You seem to have missed Apples attempt to add Android JellyBean to the Samsung case, which would have allowed bans on all new Samsung devices if allowed. Or the newer devices they did manage to get added.
They did indeed only have bans on older devices but were trying for much, much more. Now they have nothing and little chance of ever getting a US ban again.
Apparently.
Except they will get a stay pending appeal.
Samsung have been getting their ducks in a row for appeal, so expect that imminently.
Once at appeal the judge will be less parochial/clueless than Koh and the jury (assuming there will be one - I doubt it) won't be poisoned by our good friend Velvin.
In the meantime, they can still sell their wares and make $.
So in that sense it's a win for Samsung.
But that's just it, there are no "Samsonites".
There are people who enjoy using particular products/platforms/etc, and in some cases they get quite fanatical about it. But people don't get fanatical about a _company_ - people don't treat this like football teams where you want one side to win, they don't care about the company success unless you're an employee or a shareholder.
But Apple fans seem to be the exception. I love a good old which-product-is-best debate, but here it's like a tennis match where only one side is serving - rather than arguments about which product is best, it gets deflected with arguments of praise like "Look how much profit they make!", "Look how much valued they are by the stock market!" which leads to absurdities such as praising a company for having overpriced products, because high profit margins are good for the company (where as in any other debate, that would be a reason for consumers to criticise). I remember reading an article about the wonder of some Apple product, but it was only after a while that it hit me - not a single point of argument was about the product, but it was all about things being good from the company point of view, such as profits, shares, etc.
No one is arguing for Samsung for the sake of it. Rather, people enjoy using Samsung products; and also, people dislike the market being stifled due to software and design patents, especially the ones in question here.
There are people who enjoy using particular products/platforms/etc, and in some cases they get quite fanatical about it. But people don't get fanatical about a _company_ - people don't treat this like football teams where you want one side to win, they don't care about the company success unless you're an employee or a shareholder.
But Apple fans seem to be the exception. I love a good old which-product-is-best debate....
The only way the battle could have been more fierce is if the iPad had a 6502 and Samsung had chosen the Z80!
Who else has been making the whole widget since day one? Apple makes the hardware and software. Everyone else until recently with Microsofts products made either hardware or software. This is what made Apple different and why the company has fans who talk about it. Android is fragmented because Google let it loose and everyone and their mother are making hardware for it. By the way I know Many Apple product users who say nothing about the company and only about its products. Try not to make Apple fanatics seem so different from the rest. All the fanatics on all side are just that, FANATICS.
"Apple makes the hardware and software"
Actually Apple may have DESIGNED the hardware, or at least elements of it (the pretty external bits, and how the components are put together) but they don't manufacture it. The various components are made by specialist component manufacturers and assembled by Foxconn, and while some of the components are made according to Apple's specifications quite a few are standard "stock" items.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
