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
Original story here:
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.
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
How does quoting part of the ratio of the case amount to mocking Samsung?
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
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.
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.
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
Btw you should be careful with the difference between paragraphs and pages, the high court judgment is 191 paragraphs long, not pages.
Couldn't agree with you more prof. Oh and well put Ben,that's how I see it also.
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!
I thought this was pretty predictable? It was Apples only play.
Paul's system thread
(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page
By selective quote, I meant Apple did not publish, for example, this quote from the verdict:
A product made to the Apple design and of similar length would be about twice as thick as any of the Galaxy Tabs. The product to the Apple design will look thinner as a result of the side curves but the same visual effect on the edges of the Galaxy Tabs makes them look even thinner. Resting on a table side by side the surface of a product made to the Apple design will be noticeably above these tablets. To an informed user, the Galaxy tabs do not merely look like a thin version of the Apple design, they look like a different, thinner design of product.
I don't think Samsung is doing too well on their patent infringement counterclaim anywhere either. Looks like the lawyers are the winners again
Observe the signature in its natural habitat.
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.
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing