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.
Thread beginning with comment 531763
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Resistance is Futile...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Resistance is Futile..."
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 10

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

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 Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by nutt on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
nutt Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2