Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Apr 2013 16:37 UTC
Windows Microsoft's Terry Myerson, corporate vice president of Windows Phone, talks about the competition. "With iPhone, I sense that it's running out of steam. With iOS, [Apple] just added a fifth row of icons. Android is... kind of a mess. Look at Samsung - there's clearly mutiny going on. The only OEM making money off of Android is Samsung." There's truth to all these statements, which makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft appears to be unable to properly capitalise on them. Sure, WP appears to be doing well in a few select markets, but by no means the kind of success Microsoft and (Nokia) was banking on. Microsoft will pull through. Nokia on the other hand...
Permalink for comment 558935
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Bleah
by TemporalBeing on Wed 17th Apr 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Bleah"
Member since:

I just think we have a fundamental disagreement. You can tell a lot from how a case is proceeding and how a Judge is ruling. You can also infer a lot from established legal precedent and objective analysis.

There's a reason why essentially the only people who thought Samsung would prevail over Apple were people on Groklaw and OSNews. Everyone else understood that Samsung was in for a bruising.

Not really. There were a lot of people calling things both ways.

However, Groklaw also has a pretty good track record of calling cases. And for Samsung and Apple, its not over.

Yes, these cases can be appealed, and the process is long, but would it yield a different result? What are the odds that the verdict will be overturned?

For Samsung it's actually pretty good. They're debating over how to handle and what will be in a second trial right now. Apple wants one thing, which would be very limited, and Samsung is raising issues of doing just that limited thing, saying the whole thing needs to get redone. We've yet to see how the judge will rule on that; and we've yet to see how the appeals will go.

But given what we know - the documented misconduct by the jury foreman, the ignoring of the court orders by the jury, etc - we know that we need to wait until all is settled to really understand it as layman.

I don't really buy the notion that you can't put forth your own analysis, you can qualify it by saying you're not a professional, but I think not doing so is a bit of a cop out.

Sure, you can do your own analysis. But without the right training you have nothing to rely on to ensure that you are coming to the correct analysis. And being a professional you need to do just that.

It does not help a company for one of the engineers give a legal analysis of the company's standing. It doesn't help for a lawyer to do so without consulting an engineer either; but the lawyer is trained in how do those things, how to get from the engineer what they need, and how to read the courts (past and present) to give the best advice.

As a layman and someone not with that training you have at best a 50/50 chance of getting right, but more likely you'll get it wrong.

Groklaw has a good history of making the right call by applying the training they received (PJ's a paralegal, and Mark Webbink is a lawyer) to properly interpret the law, and read the courts, and explain what is going on and how it is progressing.

So, no - it's not a cop-out to say we need to only look at the final judgements and settlements. It's too premature to look at anything else for the question that was asked as they cannot be reliable enough for the answer; unless of course you have some inside access and can read all the sealed materials, etc that is only available to the parties and the judge.

Reply Parent Score: 2