31–40 of 101 posts
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
I made a similar criticism of its editorial stance 750 days ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1603929).
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
If what you're really bothered with is the bias. Then I suggest listening to TWIL. They're almost as through, and they at least try to stay neutral. (Their recent discussion on this case had actual lawyers defending both sides, and even those defending Apple agreed with the point PJ is making in this post).
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
I don't think jury nullification applies except for in criminal trials and only where the jury finds in favor of the defendant. You can't have juries running around convicting innocent people just because they don't like the law (or the defendant).
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
It can happen, it's called jury nullification. There's some interesting reading in the background section of the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Background
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.
"independently developed" This is a new claim and not one that will find many takers imho. "Apple has said they are not interested in licensing" This is far from the truth. They certainly offered licensing to Samsung. $30/device might sound like a lot but that was a starting point in a negotiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.
"independently developed" This is a new claim and not one that will find many takers imho. "Apple has said they are not interested in licensing" This is far from the truth. They certainly offered licensing to Samsung. $30/device might sound like a lot but that was a starting point in a negotiation.
One of the benefits of Android being open source and free software is that it encourages small players to start competing with giants by giving them a nice OS and the ability to tweak it. This is why we can have smartphones, tablets, netbooks, smartwatches, ski goggles, cameras running Android. All designed and produced by many different companies, from multinational giants to small Kickstarter startups. No worries though. Soon, every one of them will realize they can get sued for "text correction" and how naive they were to think that they can just build upon open source and free software to realize their goals. As a startup should you care? Absolutely not! You should simply develop for iOS only, using iMacs and Macbooks.
One can't help but suspect these players are acting in concert, to manufacture the most ridiculous exercises of technology patent abuse, so as to motivate the public and Congress to advocate for a reconsideration of the whole mess...
I don't think so, because the dysfunctionality of the patent system is working out extremely well for Apple. However, I do hold out some degree of hope that the high-profile nature of these products, along with the self-evident insanity of these patents that give one company exclusive dominion over basic concepts (rounded rectangles, pinch-to-zoom) may be enough to make more people aware of how broken the patent syst…
Absolutely. A Google-designed product getting pulled because of search? Does not compute.
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
Why is it ranting? They still post insights of how the law and the whole process works which is very useful for us lay people. Her arguments are still well formed and she makes good points, regardless if you agree with her bias. A biased post can still be insightful and useful. If what you're really bothered with is the bias. Then I suggest listening to TWIL. They're almost as through, and they at least try to stay n…
"But, in contrast, here's the Apple design patent, D504889, about those rounded corners -- how do you code around it? A tablet in the shape of a parallelogram?"
But the jury found Samsung's actual tablets, which are rectangles with rounded corners, do not infringe this patent. So her analysis that it's impossible to design around this is false.
Here's one from another recent post:
"Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression."
This isn't supported by any evidence and is almost certainly made up. I'm not aware of any survey supporting this claim.
At this point, I'm unable to tell which information about the case on Groklaw is factual and which is made up. As far as I can tell, the quotes from actual court documents are accurate, but I can't really tell about the rest.
> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection. Wasn't "Slide to Unlock" invalidated in the process against HTC?
The HTC case was in the UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232
somehow Apple reminded me of monsanto. Maintain your dominant position on the market by agressively suing everybody.