Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:50 UTC
Legal "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.
Order by: Score:
Resistance is Futile...
by orfanum on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 08:53 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

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/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

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.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 10:24 UTC in reply to "Resistance is Futile..."
RE[2]: Resistance is Futile...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Resistance is Futile..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uhm, you forget to mention Apple violated their settlement agreements several times in that case.

Selective perception is a b*tch.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Resistance is Futile...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Resistance is Futile..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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?

Reply Score: 10

RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by falcon_dark on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by nutt on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
nutt Member since:
2011-06-22

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".

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Resistance is Futile...
by zima on Wed 29th Aug 2012 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Resistance is Futile..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

You seem to be suggesting that Apple should back off from "going thermonuclear" because Steve is 100% dead...

(though OTOH... http://www.kyon.pl/img/20525,Steve_Jobs,reincarnation,strip,heaven,... )

PS.
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.

So Apple agreed to pay up...

Edited 2012-08-29 23:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Resistance is Futile...
by Tony Swash on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Resistance is Futile..."
RE[4]: Resistance is Futile...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Resistance is Futile..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Resistance is Futile...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Resistance is Futile..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by tonny on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Um.. How about apple using Nokia patent without paying them out? And then paying ONLY WHEN they lose in the court?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by orfanum on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I didn't know I was on Thom's team (I don't mind as such ^^) but, well, what Thom said - it's a question of whether any company, if it is going to make recourse to the law rather than the market, will generally feel itself bound by the law.

The turtle-neck pullover thing was an attempt at humour, it's not entirely salient but it does pointedly echo Samsung's claim that Apple is merely wanting to copyright a large screen with rounded corners - rather a catch-all description that might cover many objects in many environments.

Whether Apple Corps and Apple Computer/Inc. settled eventually regarding the point I am making is neither here nor there, except to the extent that it's obvious to me that once Apple has a goal, it will use almost any tactic (I think in the past it has adopted all these: the law, wheedling, persuasion, money, cease-and-desist) to get there.

Why a company that seems to perform so well in the market anyway, that claims it produces what consumers want, and therefore in my view should be happy to let the market decide (they are good capitalists after all, are they not, being now the richest company 'of all time'?), has this other corporate culture seemingly I find just *odd*.

And if you want a contrast regarding the question of how to handle a dispute around branding differently, just look at the recent 'Metro' case.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Resistance is Futile...
by smashIt on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Resistance is Futile..."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

But Thom - don't you hate this sort of thing, patents and copyrights blocking innovation, shouldn't you be here backing Apple's actions against the Beatles Apple Corp?


do you even know the diverence between brand/trademark/logos and patent/copyright?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Resistance is Futile...
by orfanum on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Resistance is Futile..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I think I said they breached legal judgements - hence the fines.

I didn't bring morality into it; if you look at the behaviour of Apple, you will discern however a way of pushing either the spirit or the letter of the law when it suits them, baiting and switching on that as they go.

I would only add one thing to your own list, arrogance (the jingle "sosumi" = "so sue me") which I do hope will soon be transformed into hubris.

The whole thing for consumers and the tech industry is altogether indeed a Greek tragedy IMHO

Reply Score: 3

turtle-neck sweaters
by Lennie on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 17:12 UTC in reply to "Resistance is Futile..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The turtle-neck sweaters wasn't something the Jobs came up with just look up Jobs, Sony, uniform, turtle-neck sweaters.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 09:25 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Yehppael on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 10:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by ichi on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

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!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Tony Swash on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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/2005/mar/23/transport.constitution

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.

Reply Score: 2