| 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. |
|
| Resistance is Futile... |
| By orfanum on 2012-08-22 08:53:37 |
|
What's next from Apple I wonder, that nobody may wear black turtle-neck sweaters? Lest anyone forget, the very foundation of Apple's brand was justifiably disputed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App... Read it - breached originally by Apple Computer even after legal judgement. For Jobs it was 'painful' to have had the dispute (but not so sore that he or his company ever decided to desist). So, even if this does go in Samsung's favour (and for various reasons, I hope it does), don't expect Apple to respect even the law. |
 - Score: 5 |
| Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 09:25:47 |
|
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. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 10:24:53 |
|
Apple Corps sued in 1978 over the Apple name, they settled for $80.000. Nothing wrong or evil about that. In 1989 Apple Corps sued again because Apple Computer added a MIDI interface. This killed the Apple ][. Does this make Apple Computer evil? In 1991 Apple Computer had to pay $26.5 million because they included a sound sample. Is this evil? They paid up. In 2003 Apple Corps sued and lost. In 2007 Apple Computer paid Apple Corps $500 million to buy their trademarks. Nothing wrong with that. Since then The Beatles have appeared on iTunes, making more money for Apple Corps. I don't think whatever Apple did or does will influence sales of The Beatles. It seems more that Apple Corps was just trying to extract money from Apple, which they managed to do. But there is nothing illegal, evil or wrong doing from Apple. |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By Yehppael on 2012-08-22 10:39:29 |
|
Considering the amount of data they have to go over, it makes me wonder if this is the kind of thing that should be settled by a few randomly chosen people with little or no qualification for the trial in question. I wonder if they get some kind of diploma after this. Honestly, they should, you don't read and debate over 700 points in 109/32 pages on that subject without getting some very solid understanding about it. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By ichi on 2012-08-22 10:56:50 |
|
> you don't read and debate over 700 points in 109/32 pages on that subject without getting some very solid understanding about it. Challenge accepted. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 11:15:02 |
|
I'm no legal person, but my feeling says if you do a trail by jury you want to know what the ordinary person thinks about it without any knowledge about law and little letters. All these pages, questions and having to talk it over with 8 other people is more suited for professionals. The jury verdict is in a way directed/dictated by these forms. They can't say what they like, they must try to approach their opinion within the boundaries set in the papers. The judge and lawyers are professionals, the witnesses experts in their fields and who makes the decision? Some locally rounded up citizens, selected on the basis that they didn't know about what was going on between Apple and Samsung making them the ignorant kind of types! |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-22 11:19:08 |
|
Uhm, you forget to mention Apple violated their settlement agreements several times in that case. Selective perception is a b*tch. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE[3]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 11:26:35 |
|
By adding a MIDI interface and a sound sample? Yes, they're evil. Apple Corps doesn't do much but make money from The Beatles, 50% of them are dead. It does give a strange ring to the "Corps" bit of the name. A MIDI interface and a sound sample have no influence on The Beatles sales or Apple Corps, yet they made over $500 million. And after that they made even more money by selling The Beatles in the iTunes Music Store. In no way did Apple Computer harm them or put them out of business. They gave Apple Corps a lot of money and then some. So it's a bit strange to label Apple Computer as a repeat offender that can't be trusted. Even stranger not being allowed to make any kind of sound because you named your company after a piece of fruit. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-22 11:29:30 |
|
I didn't say they were evil - just that a legally binding agreement was in place and they violated it several times. If they thought the agreement was ridiculous, they shouldn't have entered into it in the first place. For a company so hell-bent on suing others, it indeed seems a bit strange that it disregards these same laws when they are inconvenienced by them, no? |
| - Score: 10 |
| RE[5]: Resistance is Futile... |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-22 11:40:02 |
|
Agreements were agreed upon in a certain period in time and times change. To make their changes Apple Computer paid Apple Corps. Just like you can buy a house for a nice price promising you won't sell it within 5 years. But you still can, it you pay up. From what I gather from the article the first time they got sued was for the name, not for violation of any agreement as there wasn't any yet. The second time because of a MIDI interface. That's a shady subject, does adding such an interface equal Apple Computer getting in to the music business? The third time Apple Computer added a sample, even more shady. The fourth time Apple Corps sued an lost. In 2007 Apple settled any future dispute by paying a large sum of money, this was 5 years ago and since all has been well and happy. So your "several times" comes down to 2, the MIDI and sound sample, both very grey areas. But Apple Computer paid up. What's wrong with that? Most if not all agreements have clauses of payments when one party breaches it. These things happen all the time, in business, sports, politics and households. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |