Have your say & ask the experts!

Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on website!!

43 replies [Last post]
bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung
__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung

Apple has published the verdict on its website, as per court order, but has used the opportunity to mock Samsung.

The link to the verdict is at the bottom of the homepage.

__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

AnotherJoe's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 783
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung

They may well end up on charges of contempt of court with this one.

 

 

__________________

Server Synology 12Bay DS2413+, Synology 8Bay DS1812+, Sky+HD 

Lounge Samsung UE55D9000, Denon DBT-3313, Onkyo TX-NR5009, Tannoy Arena Highline 500 LCR, ACRyan playon!HD mini2 

Reception Samsung UE46C8000, Panasonic BDP310, Sony STR-DA5400ES, KEF2005.3, ACRyan playon!HD mini2 

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung

Why?

puzzled

__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5967
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

How does quoting part of the ratio of the case amount to mocking Samsung?

__________________

HiFi   /   A/V   /   Bedroom

DandyCobalt's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Posts: 1447
RE: Apple loses appeal

So the only place where Apple has won has been in the good ol' US of A?  funny, that?

I'm sure Samsung don't give a fig what Apple writes on its own website.

__________________

Pioneer tv + LX85, Sony HW15 Proj, Cyrus DAC XP+/Mono X300/CDXTSE2/PSXRx2, Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Baby Grands and Maestro centre, B&W CM1 surrounds /PV1D (9.1), CA BD751, Virgin TiVo, Inspire Rega t/t, Benz Glider MC, EAR 834P phono amp; Slee Novo Headphone Amp.TQ Black.

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

BenLaw wrote:

How does quoting part of the ratio of the case amount to mocking Samsung?

As far as I'm aware, the verdict required Apple to publish on its website that Samsung did not infringe on its patents. Out or 191 pages of the verdict, Apple has selectively quoted passages mocking Samsung as "not cool".

__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

professorhat's picture
Offline
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 11012
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

bigboss wrote:

BenLaw wrote:

How does quoting part of the ratio of the case amount to mocking Samsung?

As far as I'm aware, the verdict required Apple to publish on its website that Samsung did not infringe on its patents. Out or 191 pages of the verdict, Apple has selectively quoted passages mocking Samsung as "not cool".

Thing is, those are not Apple's words. It's not even a selective quote as such as that's exactly what the judge said.

The whole thing just continues to demostrate the ridiculousness and serious waste of money these patent wars represent.

 

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5967
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

bigboss wrote:

BenLaw wrote:

How does quoting part of the ratio of the case amount to mocking Samsung?

As far as I'm aware, the verdict required Apple to publish on its website that Samsung did not infringe on its patents. Out or 191 pages of the verdict, Apple has selectively quoted passages mocking Samsung as "not cool".

 

If you actually read it, they were required to provide the link and a short, set text, which is included. Unless you consider that the judge was mocking Samsung, then quoting the judgment is not mocking. Samsung (and you, clearly) may not like the basis for the decision but it's there in black and white. 

 

Apple would probably argue that anyone coming on to their site is entitled to know why the decision was reached. To achieve that, they have quoted the proper part of the judgment. At worst, this seems to be truculence on their part, reminiscent (although nowhere near as creative or funny) of when Private Eye were ordered to publish an apology and, to make it stand out, that it should be in a box. They therefore enclosed every paragraph on the page in its own box  excellent!

 

Btw you should be careful with the difference between paragraphs and pages, the high court judgment is 191 paragraphs long, not pages. 

__________________

HiFi   /   A/V   /   Bedroom

RodhasGibson's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 960
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

Couldn't agree with you more prof. Oh and well put Ben,that's how I see it also.

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

BenLaw wrote:

Samsung (and you, clearly) may not like the basis for the decision but it's there in black and white. 

Who said I don't like the basis of the decision? Personally, I hated Samsung tablets when I tried them at Currys. I don't even have a Samsung phone. I've got an iPad 2 myself, & bought an iPhone 4S for my wife last year (although looking to sell it now a she's bored!).

I'm merely stating my observations.

Just so that I'm clear; I don't blindly support or resist any OS or product. I've got an iOS tablet, iOS phone, Android tablet, Android phone, MacBook Pro and Windows 7 (soon to be Windows 8 Pro) laptops. I'll soon be buying a Windows 8 phone & sell my Android. My wife will soon sell her iPhone & buy an Android (& before anyone suggests, she doesn't like my HTC Sensation). Next year, I'll be upgrading my Sony Vaio to a touch screen Windows 8 ultrabook.

So you will find me praising or slating any platform!  Smile

__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Nov 2010
Posts: 2846
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

I thought this was pretty predictable?  It was Apples only play.

__________________

Paul's system thread

(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page

bigboss's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 11901
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on
__________________

My Home Cinema  Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90

Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H

Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router

ID.
ID.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 1321
RE: Apple loses appeal

DandyCobalt wrote:

So the only place where Apple has won has been in the good ol' US of A?  funny, that?

I'm sure Samsung don't give a fig what Apple writes on its own website.

I don't think Samsung is doing too well on their patent infringement counterclaim anywhere either. Looks like the lawyers are the winners again  read this

__________________

Desk-Fi: Mac Mini - NuForce Icon HDP - Fostex PM0.4n - Audio Technica ATH900x - Sennnheiser HD595 - Grado SR80i

Bedroom system: Esoteric RZ-1 - PMC DB1i / iPod Classic - Onkyo NDS1000 - Firestone Audio FUBAR IV

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5967
RE: Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on

 

It wouldn't make sense to quote just that part. The conclusions to the judgment are at paragraphs 183 to 190. However, what you quote from paragraph 186 is (along with para 187) the judge listing the differences, to compare them with the similarities he set out at para 184. His conclusion as to the significance of that comparison is at para 190, the part apple quoted. If you asked a lawyer to choose the most relevant part of the judgment it is para 190, not what you quoted. They could have quoted your part as well (and para 184 and 187 to make sense) but certainly not instead of. Your argument indicates a loss of objectivity, for whatever reason. 

 

Btw, I also do not think that you had para 186 in mind when you said apple were selectively quoting as I don't believe you'd looked at the judgment before posting. Had you done, you'd have known this was nothing like a 191 page judgment. 

__________________

HiFi   /   A/V   /   Bedroom