Apple to file for An Injunction, Samsung Files Appeal

[mope54]

it doesn't matter. that's not "Apple" wiping the device. That's a *person* who hacked the account (and yes, social engineering is the most common form of hacking) wiping the device.

Why are you spreading misinformation?
The lack of integrity in your messaging undermines the credibility of the rest of what you post.

 

[c3141hf]

it doesn't matter. that's not "Apple" wiping the device. That's a *person* who hacked the account (and yes, social engineering is the most common form of hacking) wiping the device.

Why are you spreading misinformation?
The lack of integrity in your messaging undermines the credibility of the rest of what you post.

This is not a difficult concept.

You log into Apple's servers with the account that the CSRs so graciously allowed you to access. You tell it to wipe the device. Apple's servers contact your phone, tablet, and/or laptop/desktop and then initiate a wiping procedure.

 

[mope54]

That's much different from what you earlier posted:

Apple devices pose a security risk. They spy on you, collect data about you and the devices are under the control of Apple and not the user. They can also be remotely wiped by Apple and their CSRs aren't the brightest bulbs when it comes to social engineering.

Letting such devices have access to corporate data is irresponsible.

Apple devices can only be remotely wiped if the owner attaches them to his or her iCloud account. Apple can not and will never remotely wipe a customer's device. Apple's servers will not and can not remotely wipe a device without a customer, or someone posing as the customer with appropriate access level, initiating the wipe.

That point of yours as evidence of Apple devices being less secure than others is nonsense.

It's even more silly since you post it in a Samsung thread given that both Google and Samsung data mine their customers data and sell it to third parties. Apple not only does not data mine customers data they do not sell any data a user authorizes them to possess to third parties.

Every point in your above post is factually wrong and without regard to what actually occurs in real life.

Furthermore, as mentioned, remotely wiping a device is a security feature and every corporate infrastructure worth anything is going to require that functionality--either vendor supplied or in-house. Someone stealing information and access is considered a given and absolutely nothing to do with the device vendor if the security features are thwarted.

 

[nutzo]

Have fun with BB. I can't wait to get rid of my company BB.

Love my S3 that I've had for the past month, but I do miss the 3 day battery life my BB had, even after 3 years of use.

 

[mope54]

I gave my gf my old blackberry. is there any way to quickly scroll up through texts? that's the main thing that I can't understand about the ball...

 

[Benjus]

If you read the coverage from reporters in the courtroom, and you scan the actual court documents, you'll notice that the jury didn't read the instructions from the judge when they initially handed in their verdict. This is why they somehow magically found a way to give Apple money in cases where they ruled no infringement.

As for the prior art argument, you're just wrong. Samsung's counsel (and by extension the company itself) was acting very poorly in front of the MAGISTRATE judge, not Koh (the trial judge), and said magistrate kept throwing out the evidence on the basis of it being tardy (which it was by about a month). This set a precedent for the magistrate to pretty much universally rule against Samsung, which then Koh actually had to overturn a couple of times (which is VERY rare).

Don't blame the judge for the incompetence of Samsung thinking it'd be cool to introduce evidence a month late. Discovery isn't some magic box that extends forever where you can introduce new evidence whenever you feel like. That's to protect both the plaintiff and the defendant from maliciously hiding evidence with the idea of surprising the other side which would have no time to study and or refute. And while there may be further evidence that Samsung wasn't acting in bad faith, that was irrelevant according to the Magistrate, and Koh was not going to overturn that ruling (as mentioned earlier, it's very rare for a magistrate to be overturned unless there was a gross misruling, as in the case in which sanctions were levied against Samsung but not Apple for not documenting emails at the time the dispute was initiated [April 2010]).

People need to not believe the fantasies the media (Engadget and company) are propagating and actually sit down and read what transpired in the case. Even if you read biased sources like FOSSPatents or Groklaw, that's better than the garbage being put out by the large media companies. [Maybe not FOSS, who's a paid corporate shill.]

cheers,

 

[BBA]

Depends if they get a judge who wasn't paid off, like the last one blatantly was.

Agreed.

It's funny that Apple lost the same cases in foreign countries then this one post Apple lawyer judge decides to withold evidence that changes the jury's decision in Apple's favor.

 

[BBA]

I gave my gf my old blackberry. is there any way to quickly scroll up through texts? that's the main thing that I can't understand about the ball...

Thats one of the complaints I have with my work BB.

 

[WaltC]

Depends if they get a judge who wasn't paid off, like the last one blatantly was.

Stupid judges are the bane of technology trials decided by juries. Ever since the infamous Judge Jackson and Microsoft, consumers have been paying through the nose for their idiotic ideas of what's admissible and what's isn't. Judge Jackson laughed in the Microsoft lawyer's face when he suggested to the court that Microsoft could not be a monopolist because Linux distros and Apple and Sun were direct competitors to Windows. Judge Jackson said, as he laughed, "In a pig's eye!" Judges on the whole, not all of them of course, are techno-losers and what they know about technology they get from the WSJ or CNN or Apple Insider. The only hope here is that Samsung finds a jurist as savvy as the British judge who made Apple publish on its website that Samsung had not copied Apple (don't know if that's happened yet.) It's literally amazing how two such dramatically different opinions emerge from the same data, isn't it?

Generally, though, the US court system is 50 years behind state of the art technology. Most high-schooler's understand it better than most judges, and would be the first to easily understand why Apple's entire case should be thrown out with prejudice. I could have single-handedly won the case for Samsung--just little 'ol me-- except for one problem: Judge Koh. She would not have let me introduce the evidence that would have won the case for Samsung and proven what a liar Apple is. It's that simple. She's the judge, remember, who made headlines early on about how "from ten feet away" she couldn't tell the difference between a Samsung tablet and an Apple tablet, and so from that masterful observation she reasoned and said that she was already predisposed towards Apple! Hello? How the hell did show know at that point that Apple hadn't copied Samsung? She couldn't have because she had yet to hear the case! Besides, *nobody* buys tablets or cell phones from "ten feet away". If that's not wonderful grounds for appeal I don't know what would be.

Judges *can be* the biggest barriers to fair trials that both defendants and plaintiffs alike will face! The Judge controls the evidence, and as such is the most powerful lawyer in the room. If you get an incompetent/lazy Judge--might as well flip a coin.

 

[omegadot]

From most of the articles, I read the Samsung lawyers didn't properly enter the evidence in a lot of instances. The headlines just never reflected this as it's not as interesting. For that reason alone I imagine that the following trials will go more smoothly. That said, I don't really consider either side morally superior. Apple just seems to be a bit further down the road to absurd.

 

[WaltC]

If you read the coverage from reporters in the courtroom, and you scan the actual court documents, you'll notice that the jury didn't read the instructions from the judge when they initially handed in their verdict. This is why they somehow magically found a way to give Apple money in cases where they ruled no infringement.

So, are saying the jury was prejudiced? That Koh had no responsibility ask if the jury understood her instructions? Doesn't sound like they did understand those instructions, does it? I mean, it couldn't be that maybe the jury got the instructions "late" and that Koh made little to no effort to ensure they understood those instructions? Is there some reason, do you think, when Koh found they had not followed her instructions that she could not have handed the jury its decision and said, "You did not follow my instructions, revise this decision so that it is congruent with the instructions you received from me and then let me see your decision before you announce it so that I can double check it." Juries routinely ask judges for all kinds of clarifications in a case--happens every day. Did it happen here?

As for the prior art argument, you're just wrong. Samsung's counsel (and by extension the company itself) was acting very poorly in front of the MAGISTRATE judge, not Koh (the trial judge), and said magistrate kept throwing out the evidence on the basis of it being tardy (which it was by about a month). This set a precedent for the magistrate to pretty much universally rule against Samsung, which then Koh actually had to overturn a couple of times (which is VERY rare).

Where would a magistrate judge get it in its head that its job was to act as an evidence censor in this trial? No wonder Koh overruled the magistrate--otherwise, its an automatic grounds for appeal. You don't credit the Samsung attorneys for an ability to design strategy, do you?

Don't blame the judge for the incompetence of Samsung thinking it'd be cool to introduce evidence a month late. Discovery isn't some magic box that extends forever where you can introduce new evidence whenever you feel like.

I guess you've never heard of that happening before, have you? It happens all the time, actually, and not just from the defense in these cases. Judges (there's that word again) have to then make decisions as to whether the evidence submitted "late" is *admissible.* Being late doesn't automatically have to mean it is inadmissible-- that's the judge's decision to make.

More importantly, did you stop to recognize that Koh pushed this trial from day one on a chronological basis? I'm surprised these attorneys had time to zip up their trousers/dresses in the mornings or put on their ties.

hat's to protect both the plaintiff and the defendant from maliciously hiding evidence with the idea of surprising the other side which would have no time to study and or refute.

If that happens then you *give* the other side the time it needs, within reason, to refute. If you throw out major evidence on the grounds that it is "tardy" all you do is guarantee a basis for appeal in the future, if the jury isn't manipulated the way the judge thinks it should be manipulated (that's the *real* meaning of "jury nullification" but we won't go there...).

And while there may be further evidence that Samsung wasn't acting in bad faith, that was irrelevant according to the Magistrate, and Koh was not going to overturn that ruling (as mentioned earlier, it's very rare for a magistrate to be overturned unless there was a gross misruling, as in the case in which sanctions were levied against Samsung but not Apple for not documenting emails at the time the dispute was initiated [April 2010]).

Right--we already have ample proof of anti-Samsung bias by the magistrate in this case.

People need to not believe the fantasies the media (Engadget and company) are propagating and actually sit down and read what transpired in the case. Even if you read biased sources like FOSSPatents or Groklaw, that's better than the garbage being put out by the large media companies. [Maybe not FOSS, who's a paid corporate shill.]

cheers,

Evidently then your idea is that Samsung lost not because it deserved to lose on the merits, but it lost because of Samsung's attorneys being "late" with evidence submissions? I surely hope so--because that means a reversal on appeal should be almost automatic.

 

[Trimlock]

c'mon nokia, blow our minds with your new phone so we can ignore these two companies!

 

[Stone Cold]

All the jury probably were friends of Apple employees.... Why couldn't Samsung get a change of venue?

 

[ikarinokami]

Samsung is just wasting time and money. They are not going to get an injuction because it's a jury verdict.

The standerd to overturn a jury verdcit is high , its not worth trying.

Their only shot is to challenge the jury instructions, unfortunately for them the judge was on her game. the record is pretty good for giving the basis of her rulings.

I suppose if your samsung its worth a shot in the dark.

 

[kllrnohj]

Apple devices can only be remotely wiped if the owner attaches them to his or her iCloud account. Apple can not and will never remotely wipe a customer's device. Apple's servers will not and can not remotely wipe a device without a customer, or someone posing as the customer with appropriate access level, initiating the wipe.

Of course Apple can remote wipe a consumer's device. It's idiotic to think otherwise. What do you think happens when you log into *iCloud* and issue a remote wipe? *Apple's* servers send a packet to the phone that destroys it. Apple could just as easily send that packet without you logging in.

Now, whether or not they *WOULD* is a different story, but given the right external and/or governmental pressure, I wouldn't be surprised if they would for some situations.

That point of yours as evidence of Apple devices being less secure than others is nonsense.

No, not really. If your device is controllable by a server outside of your control, that's a security issue. Both Blackberry and Android allow you to decide what server manages remote wiping and such, so that only servers you own and control can remotely manage your devices. If iOS doesn't allow that, that's a pretty major problem for enterprise management and security.

It's even more silly since you post it in a Samsung thread given that both Google and Samsung data mine their customers data and sell it to third parties. Apple not only does not data mine customers data they do not sell any data a user authorizes them to possess to third parties.

Google sure as fuck doesn't sell your information to anyone. I don't know where you get your information, but it's very, *very* wrong.

Also, Apple *does* data mine customers data. They probably don't sell it, but they certainly collect it for internal uses.

 

[nutzo]

I gave my gf my old blackberry. is there any way to quickly scroll up through texts? that's the main thing that I can't understand about the ball...

Press T for top of B for bottom

I know this works for emails, but I never tested it in messaging.

 

[mope54]

Press T for top of B for bottom

I know this works for emails, but I never tested it in messaging.

Thank you! Apparently it works because I texted what you wrote to my gf and she replied: "Omgg that's awesome!!!"

 

[Zeh_Juggernaut]

True question is.. Will this actually change anything? Hasn't Samsung already adjusted most of the current and future lineup to avoid Apple's litigation and bullshit?

 

[heatlesssun]

True question is.. Will this actually change anything? Hasn't Samsung already adjusted most of the current and future lineup to avoid Apple's litigation and bullshit?

This is the question that's on everyone's minds right now and I don't think the answer is at all known right now. This really in just the beginning of this fight and I don't think much will be clear for some time to come.

 

[mope54]

I doubt that's a question that is on everyone's mind. maybe some people around here and elsewhere willing latch on to most anything remotely possibly objectionable that Apple could possibly do

the tab was spared by the jury and the S3 wasn't even accused of infringing
ICS and jelly bean were both revamped to not do the bounce and jiggle stuff and now they just have to rework the touch to zoom and pinch to zoom (both which will continue to be carried on in open source land, however)

and strangely enough, as an answer to whether this kind of stuff hampers competition, these lawsuits forced samsung to redesign and come up with the S3 and wouldn't you know it that's their best phone yet :|

 

[heatlesssun]

Say what you will, but there's certainly been a lot of ink in the general media this weekend about the implications of this ruling.

 

[nutzo]

and strangely enough, as an answer to whether this kind of stuff hampers competition, these lawsuits forced samsung to redesign and come up with the S3 and wouldn't you know it that's their best phone yet :|

Which is going to make Apples problem even worse.
I just hope Samsung patents everything, so when Apple copies them (like Apple copies everyone) Samsung can sue Apple for 2 billion $.

 

[refraxion]

Which is going to make Apples problem even worse.
I just hope Samsung patents everything, so when Apple copies them (like Apple copies everyone) Samsung can sue Apple for 2 billion $.

Nah, Samsung will just copy somebody else and people here will praise them for their "innovation", just like Apple!

 

[illli]

if i were samsung i would file an appeal and include the steve jobs interview where he admits apple shamelessly steals ideas from other people/companies.

 

[mope54]

Say what you will, but there's certainly been a lot of ink in the general media this weekend about the implications of this ruling.

well maybe you misunderstood his question. he was asking whether this was going to change anything for Samsung, not mobile phones in general.

there may be speculation about what this means for android or the other vendors but there isn't much speculation being made about the fate of Samsung long-term because, as I already noted, most of the infringing products have already been redesigned.

 

[heatlesssun]

well maybe you misunderstood his question. he was asking whether this was going to change anything for Samsung, not mobile phones in general.

there may be speculation about what this means for android or the other vendors but there isn't much speculation being made about the fate of Samsung long-term because, as I already noted, most of the infringing products have already been redesigned.

But even for Samsung there's a lot of outstanding questions. Will Samsung need to acquire Apple licenses? And there could very well be products in the future that Apple may have issue with. This ruling creates a great deal of uncertainty in the Android device space including Samsung.

 

[mope54]

I'm interested in reading these articles you're referring to then. Where are they, please?

 

[heatlesssun]

Go to any of the major news outlets, all of them have articles about what this ruling could mean and the doubt it causes. Some are even saying that this could be an opportunity for Microsoft since Apple isn't gong after them.

I'm not saying any of this staff is accurate but plenty of people are wondering what, this all means in the long run.

 

[rflcptr]

Go to any of the major news outlets, all of them have articles about what this ruling could mean and the doubt it causes. Some are even saying that this could be an opportunity for Microsoft since Apple isn't gong after them.

I'm not saying any of this staff is accurate but plenty of people are wondering what, this all means in the long run.

Why is providing linkage a problem?

 

[Ididar]

Unless I'm mistaken, there were standards patents from Samsung in this case. If the jury said Apple didn't infringe 3G standards patents I seriously question the ability of the jury to understand what was being said.

 

[Cali3350]

Why is providing linkage a problem?

Because he needs to spend time doing it? Linking isnt a privaledge...

 

[pablouk]

So surprised a non US company lost in the good old USofA

 

[matt9669]

So here's what this proves:

1) The judge treated a case that has billions of dollars in repercussions for the mobile phone industry, tech industry as a whole, patent system, and how business is done as a whole (compete or sue?) - as a run-of-the-mill jury trial. She probably wasn't paid off, she may not even be sympathetic to Apple, but she is at the very least an utter moron.

2) Juries are as clueless as they have ever been. Apple makes shiny things, so sure, we'll ban every product their competitor makes.

3) If this case followed the proper application of relevant law, than the law is completely and utterly f**cked up here. Barring criminal malfeasance I.E. fraud, injury, death etc, no group of people, much less a jury of 12 random assholes, has any business deciding what products the top companies in should be allowed to sell. The only people that should be making that decision should be consumers with their wallets.

4) Those jurors are consumers, and they decided to screw themselves and the rest of us. Welcome less innovation and higher prices, as well as legal exclusivity for one company's products because they managed to game the system.

 

[Ididar]

Mistakes on the form seem to show that they rushed through the last half. Saying Apple didn't infringe the FRAND patents (they _have_ to infringe, the issue is purely money) is just downright wrong and shows the jury didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Analysis from a couple sources say that the jury basically approached the forms as an "we believe Apple" and then approached the form purely from that perspective, not based on the actual facts and the reality of the products in their hands.

 

[Cali3350]

Interesting to see what the judge does with the Will full Infringement charge. She can triple damages because of that.

 

[matt9669]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ed-to-send-a-message/?comments=1#comments-bar

I stand corrected - jury of only 9 (civil trial I guess) - and really it was the foreman pushing this. So one guy - literally one person out to "send a message" to the industry over copiers - because he understands. After all, he holds this patent:

"Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953

One more case of the rest of us getting screwed so a jury can "send a message" - as if that's what a jury was for! How much more FUBAR can we get here ...

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.

Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than we knew.

The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

I am very proud of the work that each of you do.

Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.

Tim

I think this guy actually believes his own bullshit. "Stealing isn't right"? Cue the Jobs quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

At the end of the day though, this isn't about who stole who's ideas (doesn't matter), whether it's OK to game the system (it's not), or who the hypocrites are (everyone). It's about using the government's coercive powers to achieve what you want/feel you are owed instead of earning it. You make a great product, fine. Sell as many as you can and make gobs of money. (Hasn't Apple already been doing this?) But you don't have the right to bar competitors from making a similar product. You aren't owed profits, exclusively or otherwise, for making something good, and that's how Apple's acting here.

</end rant>

 

[c3141hf]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ed-to-send-a-message/?comments=1#comments-bar

I stand corrected - jury of only 9 (civil trial I guess) - and really it was the foreman pushing this. So one guy - literally one person out to "send a message" to the industry over copiers - because he understands. After all, he holds this patent:

"Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953

One more case of the rest of us getting screwed so a jury can "send a message" - as if that's what a jury was for! How much more FUBAR can we get here ...



I think this guy actually believes his own bullshit. "Stealing isn't right"? Cue the Jobs quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU


At the end of the day though, this isn't about who stole who's ideas (doesn't matter), whether it's OK to game the system (it's not), or who the hypocrites are (everyone). It's about using the government's coercive powers to achieve what you want/feel you are owed instead of earning it. You make a great product, fine. Sell as many as you can and make gobs of money. (Hasn't Apple already been doing this?) But you don't have the right to bar competitors from making a similar product. You aren't owed profits, exclusively or otherwise, for making something good, and that's how Apple's acting here.

</end rant>

So he basically patented the DVR. He can go DIAF for all I care.

 

[XvMMvX]

Only on [H] would people believe that apple paid off the judge and the Jury only ruled in their favor because they are "hipster izealots"

Get a clue...

Apple holds the patents and samsung copied them. The patent system is fucked up but Apple has them and defended them. Every single one of you would have done the same thing.

Some of you need to work on not showing your ignorance so much.

Almost every phone, table, and interface that Samsung has come out with is a copy after the iPhone hit in 2007. Even if apple didn't have the patent how about you come up with your own shit. Then again it is not like the Asian countries haven't knocked off american products before. Nothing new to them.

 

[mope54]

Because he needs to spend time doing it? Linking isnt a privaledge...

the problem is he made it up. did you see a bunch off articles claiming the future of Samsung is now in doubt? no, neither did any of us because no major media or even minor media outlets were saying that. if he was sitting here reading them they'd be on his tabs or history. sure it's not a right but when someone makes as claim no one else is seeing then I guess you just have to consider the "evidence“ for the claim and so far that's zilch.

 

[heatlesssun]

Only on [H] would people believe that apple paid off the judge and the Jury only ruled in their favor because they are "hipster izealots"

Get a clue...

Sometimes people's cynicism defines common sense. Heck, why didn't Samsung pay off the judge and jury? In any case, the way this system works and with all of eyes on it and number of people involved corruption at this level is simply not easy to accomplish unless there's some sort of vast pro-Apple conspiracy going on.

However, I'm sure a lot of people that this is indeed the case.