Comments on: Apple v. Samsung: Expert witness testifies that most Galaxy devices infringe Apple patents, trade dress

By: Indiemuppet

Indiemuppet — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:52:45 +0000

Beyond a poor grasp of grammar, you appear to also not be familiar with many Asian technology companies – and are generalising an entire continent of distinct countries. Take Nintendo, for example. One can’t deny that they, like Apple, show willing to think outside the box* and push innovation in their field.

(*Except, y’know, for the GameCube. Literally.)

By: twimoon1

twimoon1 — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:58:01 +0000

I would believe you have a brain in your skull when I see a surgeon open it up with a buzz saw shine a light inside of it and I see pulsating grayish-pink matter.

Until that time, I will assume your cranial cavity is empty.

By: Harry4

Harry4 — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:40:09 +0000

ALL Asian society’s are copy cats. It is normal there. Hardly any control.

By: kenrm

kenrm — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:31:32 +0000

You are correct, it’s not so much what is said but the reputation of the (Professional) witness that is taken to task.

TecCrunch is missing the exact wording of the testimony between the Witness and the Lawyer’s, until the transcripts are released it does gets the point across.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:07:58 +0000

No, they’d think he had no morals and was OK with thievery as long as he got a piece of the action. In other words, a typical Samsung buyer.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:06:04 +0000

Is that you, Pat? Getting another $25 for astroturfing?

By: Jubei

Jubei — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:08:45 +0000

Oops for a brief moment I thought the phone shown up there was the iPhone!

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:36:33 +0000

> But if he were to pull a Samsung device out of his pocket, people won’t believe he is an expert.

* Correction if he pulls out a Samsung device people won’t believe he is an APPLE paid expert … whose expertise expired in 1990 before the iPhone. (ooops!)

By: whogastim

whogastim — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:31:05 +0000

Not conversation. Not discussion. The word needed is testimony.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:29:43 +0000

They would think he was expert enough by being smart enough not follow the crowd. Actually he should have one of each. Now what are you going to pat each other on the back for????

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:27:50 +0000

Yes, because all they are doing is basically screwing everybody.

By: silverhawk1

silverhawk1 — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:15:48 +0000

Perhaps they should have used “intercourse.”

By: CupertinoJoe

CupertinoJoe — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:32:43 +0000

Touche, Mark. Nice call.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:22:44 +0000

But if he were to pull a Samsung device out of his pocket, people won’t believe he is an expert.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:16:58 +0000

On cross examination I would ask that “Expert” to reach in his pocket and fish out his smart phone. If it’s an Apple device. I won’t believe him. And yes the Apple expert gets paid just like the Samsung one will.

By: botvinnik

botvinnik — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:22:03 +0000

These days writers also prefer “WTF” over “WFT.”

By: Jeff II

Jeff II — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:06:31 +0000

quote from article: “Crook reports, “The conversation then moved…”

My question of the day is: Why this overuse of the word “conversation” when the word needed is “discussion.” A conversation is something informal, social; whereas a discussion is more formal and professional. These days writers seem to prefer “conversation” over “discussion.” WFT?

By: deji

deji — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:58:09 +0000

i love samsung as much as i love my toilet but i can’t burn lots of cash cleaning out my closet

By: greggthurman

greggthurman — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:57:46 +0000

It isn’t the testimony of the “expert” that matters so much, its the credentials of the witness

(adjunct associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, president of the Industrial Designers Society of America between 1989 to 1990),
called as an expert witness in seven different trials).

Apple’s “expert” has terrific credentials. The jury is going to believe him.