By Greetings, earthlings. You’ve made it to another Android Overload. This is the place we stash all of the Android related news stories (and sometimes random articles) we find from around the internet throughout the day. As you’ve no doubt found out by now, no, the above video isn’t exactly “Android related,” but it definitely is Droid related. You know what they say, laughing is good for the soul. Here’s the other “almosts” from around the net:
- Ting (an MVNO on Sprint’s network) has announced they will be offering the 16GB Galaxy S3 for $530 and 32GB version for $580. [Ting]
- Tablets will soon replace the smartphone? Blasphemy. [GigaOM]
- Ubuntu for Android demoed on Motorola Atrix 2. Runs natively (not emulated). [PhoneArena]
- Microsoft nabs their 15th Android OEM licensing deal. This time from Honeywell. [WSJ] (Paywall)
- Alpha builds of CM10 hit 7 Sony Xperia devices (Ray, Pro, Neo, Neo V, Arc, Arc S, S). [XDA]
- Judge rejects 3 Samsung motions regarding prior patent art drawn from movies and TV. [Electronista]
- 7-inch Matrix One tablet goes on sale with adequate specs, priced at $90. [Engadget]
- Kernel source for HTC Desire C released. [HTCDev]
I can’t believe how much Samsung’s attorneys have messed up till now…
Messed up till now? You mean they are better now, or are you just trolling and can’t find the right words?
It’s judge Koh.. a known Apple sympathizer. What do you really expect?
“Till now” because we don’t know how they’ll do in the future, smart aleck.
Please, before replying, be sure to know what you’re talking about.
Here’s the story:
“While the footage [from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the UK television show Tomorrow People] had been introduced into the case in 2011 as background, Samsung hadn’t disclosed at the time that it ever intended to use it to argue for patent invalidity. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal had previously ruled that Samsung couldn’t change its mind late in the game since Apple wouldn’t have time to prepare a proper response for the trial; Koh agreed.
Samsung had also introduced a 1994 tablet designed by Roger Fidler and the Compaq TC1000 as part of its patent invalidity case, but after the close of discovery changed its mind again and wanted to use them to argue that it hadn’t infringed in the first place. Grewal had ruled against the change for the same timeline issues, a decision Koh upheld.”
I used to think that Judge Koh was biased (and, honestly, I’m still not totally sure she’s not) but the real culprits here are the bungling lawyers.
It’s judge Koh… a known Apple employee.
^there, i fixed it for you.
I guess unlike Apple, Samsung can’t spend every penny they have on the best attorneys. You know, they need to actually pump some money into R&D. But I’d imagine that their attorneys would be a bit better then this. Also doesn’t help that the Judge seems to be biased in favor of Apple.
/mandatory android fanboyism
Yeah, I’d have liked to see what would have occured if the case had been judged by Posner, but if I was Samsung CEO, I’d fire these lawyers.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-whose-lawyers-are-getting-paid-in-the-smartphone-wars/
Samsung’s lawyers are getting paid more.
And the Judge isn’t biased. Samsung had their chance to submit that evidence, and they didn’t want to then. That’s their fault.
tablets are going to replace the smartphone ? really could you imagine someone trying to stick a nexus 7, transformer infinity or an iPad into their front pocket or hold it up to their face ? I don’t think anyone uses a tablet as much as a smartphone unless they don’t own a smartphone in the first place
Bluetooth is your friend
Did you read the article? He explained his reasoning on those points you mentioned.
lol no I din’t, I was distracted by the article “Judge rejects 3 Samsung motions”
Wow how is anyone supposed to win a case with out any evidence or even a chance to get a point across, someone should slap that bizatch in the face, pow right in that kissa
It’s a total mess. I like this article’s rather forthright view. http://www.thetokyoblonde.net/apple-vs-samsung-vs-koh-how-the-public-are-being-misled-in-this-patent-trial/
great article, thanks =)
Anytime! It’s nice to find some balance out there to all the one sided stories I’m coming across.
It’s blatantly full of what it criticizes: partisanship and baseless assertions.
That’s not what I took away from it, and dare i say it, I’m an Apple Mac user. I think it was highlighting those issues you mentioned in your post, because there has to be something to criticise. If it seemed one-sided (not that i noticed), then perhaps its trying to tip that boat back onto an even keel. Like many of the pro-Apple patent case arguments, they are full of partisanship, and isn’t the whole point of the counter argument to Apple’s case, the notion that Apple’s assertions are baseless?
Well, it says:
– “Samsung is being denied pretty much any way to defend themselves…”
> Totally and obviously wrong.
– “…over Apple’s erroneous, spurious and downright bullshit claims.”
> As much as I agree with this, it has yet to be proved in this case.
– “Samsung wanted to introduce evidence of prior art based on the sci-fi film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ in which you can see clear designs for technology we see today — especially in the case of the iPad and iPhone.”
> This “had been introduced into the case in 2011 as background, Samsung hadn’t disclosed at the time that it ever intended to use it to argue for patent invalidity.” Later, Samsung just changed their mind about that.
– “Judge Koh, in all her legal meanderings, brings up the law of discovery, and refuses Samsung.”
> It’s not Judge Koh that rejected the Samsung’s change of strategy, but Judge Paul Grewal. Judge Koh just upheld the decision.
– “This law, these laws, are fucked, they do not work[…].”
> So a judge should decide what law he/she thinks doesn’t “work” and quit applying it? Brilliant.
– “I’ve read various stories on other sites, news outlets, etc. and most of them splutter out the reasoning why these things I’ve talked about have been refused. Screw that.”
> So convenient… Reasons? Explanations? Screw that.
There are better ways to “tip that boat back onto an even keel,” personally, I prefer this one:
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/john-quinn-defends-his-personal-honor-as-apple-v-samsung-trial-gets-crazier/
1. yes they are being denied that very thing. Their lawyers even said what’s the point in the case if they can’t produce evidence.
2. It’s been proven already. For example, Samsung have already shown their pre-iPhone phone, which looks like an IPhone. We already have the LG Prada as another example. Then there’s the slide to unlock patent. Thrown out by a judge in the UK. So, it does seem that it has been indeed proven.
3. That’s the whole point of that article, which you’ve missed on — that the laws are preventing much manoeuvrability and flexibility. That’s the issue, the law is screwed.
4. So, she still rejected Samsung’s request. It’s the same thing. She had the power to over-turn it, she didn’t.
5. No, the judges, the law, are broken, that’s the point I got from the article. Patents such as these should never have been granted in the first place, therefore providing the platform for the likes of Apple to then do this.. Again, you missed the point.
6. Why not ask the author? They already mentioned the basis of the article was CNN and a quite from an Apple tech person.
7. Actually, I found that the article was pretty spot on when it comes to getting way past the playing field. Helped me see that we are arguing within a box set up by others and one which limits sensibilities.
Oh come on… this is the USA, not a dictatorship, they’re not denied any way to defend themselves.
They have produced evidences, only some of them have been rejected because they didn’t follow the procedure, and there are many ways to defend yourself in a trial.
There are also cases that Apple won. What happens in foreign courts has no effect here. It’s not been proven in this case, or maybe is the trial over and you’re the only one to know it?
The result is the same, but it’s not the same thing: you and “your” article blame Judge Koh and apparently voluntarily forget that the first judge who denied it was Judge Paul Grewal. Judge Koh is not part of a plot against Samsung…
No, you’re completely wrong, there are precise reasons why these motions have been denied, Samsung introduced these evidences as background and didn’t disclose that they intended to use it to argue for patent invalidity. They could have done it back then but they didn’t, that’s the point you’re missing about this piece of news.
The point of the article you linked is that there’s a plot that prevents Samsung to defend themselves. Ridiculous. The patent system is broken, not the hole justice system, as the author of this article wants you to believe.
Keeping on writing such inanities just shows how much you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think that Apple will have a hard time trying to win this case, and even if they do, they will lose the appeal.
And I hope that some of their patents will be invalidated in the process.
This whole Apple vs Samsung trial is so biased, not even Nilay Patel of The Verge, who IS a lawyer, can say anything good about it, he’s pretty much called the judge biased in a few tweets
I really like the piece about tablets being the phones of tomorrow. I think after the Note 2 is launched, it’s likely a lot more people will be thinking that way.