| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Apple, Samsung deliver closing statements, up to the jury now |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-22 07:50:36 |
| "After weeks of witnesses, prototypes, and one last failed settlement talk, it came down to this: Apple and Samsung's closing arguments in what is very likely the tech trial of the century. The day saw both sides landing heavy blows before sending the case off to the jury - where anything can happen." The jury has to contend with 109 (!) pages of instructions and a verdict form consisting of whopping 22 pages with over 700 (!) verdicts to make - and they have to be unanimous. This is beyond ridiculous, bordering on the clinically insane. With several options for appeal still open, there is nothing to be gained from this. It's a circus. |
|
| RE: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-08-22 13:03:43 |
|
> One has to wonder how long a jury member can stay interested, focused and concentrated after all these pages and questions. I can imagine after a while they get fed up and just try to get it over with. I know I would. If you think this is bad have pity for the poor people on this jury. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/200... They had to listen to tedious evidence about a possible fraud for two years and then the case collapsed. I was once on two back to back juries at the Old Bailey in London, both thankfully short but both involving unpleasant sexual crimes. It was very stressful. Anybody on any jury has my sympathy and respect. It's a great system but hard work for the average citizens who have to make the final fateful decisions. What was interesting about both the juries I was on was just how seriously everybody took their responsibility. We split in one of the trials and couldn't agree a verdict and had to be kept secluded and incommunicado in a hotel overnight before we could finally reach a verdict. Hard work. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By nutt on 2012-08-22 13:07:42 |
|
> If they thought the agreement was ridiculous, they shouldn't have entered into it in the first place. I don't think they thought the agreement was ridiculous. I think they thought that the interpretation that adding a MIDI-port to a computer was "entering the music business" (a business which, at least in the case of Apple Corps, is about music licensing, not about actually making music) was ridiculous. I'd say this was a honest "mistake". |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-22 13:08:16 |
|
Uh, I never said it was a problem that Apple violated said agreement - in fact, the agreement was ridiculous to begin with. What I did point out, however, was that I find it kind of funny that when Apple violates a legally binding agreement, you Apple fanatics suddenly join MY side - only because now it's Apple doing the very thing you condemn other companies of doing. Pretty funny. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[5]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-08-22 13:28:35 |
| No, not at all. Most companies will always act in what they perceive as their best interest, even if that means doing what they themselves objected to in the past. Heck, most people are like that. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 13:44:46 |
|
I replied to Orfanum who spread some FUD about turtle necks and supported it with "prove" that turned out to be overly flawed. Then you joined Orfanum's side. The agreement that started in 1978 and has seen 2 grey area cases is generally boring and has nothing do to with turtle necks or Apple being a repeat offender, which Orfanum and you suggest. It's just how things work in this world, but just because one party is Apple (Computer) you designate them the villain and the other automatically the good guys. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[6]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-22 13:55:06 |
|
> Then you joined Orfanum's side. I only pointed out to you that you failed to mention Apple violated the agreement twice. I didn't join anybody's side. > It's just how things work in this world, but just because one party is Apple (Computer) you designate them the villain and the other automatically the good guys. I didn't label them the bad guys at all. Again - I don't know where that comes from, other than preconceived notions. In fact, Apple/Beatles' original claim was nonsensical to begin with, and so was the agreement. However, you would expect that a company like Apple, so hell-bent on suing others, would abide by a legally binding agreement. The fact that they did not, in fact, do so, is kind of funny. Doubly so when then people who usually wax lyrically about applying the law to the letter suddenly are all "meh" just because the law negatively affected Apple. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Alfman on 2012-08-22 13:57:12 |
|
Thom Holwerda, Hypocrisy is a typical fanboy response. It's so predictable now that it's boring: their companies are incriminated so they get all roused up and become ridiculously over-defensive, they make tenuous mental algebra to justify their preconceived notions about good and evil corporations. They'll pin the problem on anyone else but can never accept the fact that their leaders are sometimes guilty. I could never be so simple minded as to have blind faith in any entity the way fanboys do, I need to see the good AND the bad. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[7]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 14:05:11 |
|
They didn't break any "law". The original agreement was made in 1978, during the build-your-own-Apple days. It took 8 years, which is a very very long time in tech, for the first incident which was the addition of a MIDI interface. This event was most probably not foreseen in 1978 and a true "grey area". Apple wasn't making or selling music, but it did enable musicians to do so. So the settled and the Apple ][ got canned. The second event was 5 years later, again a long time and another grey area which also got sorted. Then 12 years(!) later Apple Corps sued and lost. And that was it, Apple Computer bought them out. There is nothing weird, strange, illegal, scummy or anything unusual about this and compares in no way to the cases the last couple of years where Apple sued and got sued. But just because it is Apple you present it as evidence that Apple is evil and breaks the law just because they can or don't think the law doesn't apply to them. Apple Computer never damaged Apple Corps or made their own Beatles music. They kept the agreement and when the situation changed they gave them money. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 14:20:17 |
|
It isn't being hypocritical, it's pointing out Orfanum and Thom are in error when they try to claim Apple is a law breaking repeat offender while in reality they just settled with Apple Corps YEARS after their first agreement when the world changed. This is something that happens all the time. In 1978 nobody had a computer with a MIDI interface at home, no one could dream that you could be selling music files over the Internet. So the agreement changed and Apple paid money for that. Orfanum claims these agreement changes someone will make Apple sue people who wear turtle necks and you seem to agree. Well, you're free to believe that and I'm free to point out that it's nonsense. I know it's your and Thom's hobby to try to prove Apple is evil, but the well of inspiration is getting rather dry if it's these kind of "examples" you need to bring forward to sustain your offensive. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[7]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Alfman on 2012-08-22 14:44:27 |
|
They eventually settled AFTER Apple Computer wilfully violated their legal agreements. Thoms point is valid, Apple are willing to use the law when it suits them and are willing to ignore it when it doesn't, regardless of our opinions about right/wrong, it is an example of hypocrisy. "I know it's your and Thom's hobby to try to prove Apple is evil," Speaking for myself, that's a baseless accusation. If you truly believe that, then you don't understand my opinion. Like I already said, you gotta take the good with the bad. Edit: For the record, neither Thom or I said apple is evil, heck I didn't even mention "apple" at all. Did you consider that you might be overly defensive about the whole thing? Edited 2012-08-22 14:55 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |