Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Posted: 07 August 2012 02:09 AM #91

    Is corruption a malum in se or malum prohibum?

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 04:05 AM #92

    I’m curious why the categorical imperative has apparently never made its way into discussion at law. Falkirk, your last post could use a dose of it.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 08:43 AM #93

    Device by device monetary damage claim:
    http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/07/heres-the-device-by-device-breakdown-of-apples-damages-claims-against-samsung/

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 09:58 AM #94

    williamjames - 07 August 2012 07:05 AM

    I’m curious why the categorical imperative has apparently never made its way into discussion at law. Falkirk, your last post could use a dose of it.

    From the dictionary:

    The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.

    A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

    ““Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    I believe in the rule of law. In a modern society, it is unjust to punish someone for something that has not been codified. To do otherwise would not lead to a higher law as implied by the categorical imperative - it would lead to subjective law - the rule of man, the rule of the mob, the rule of brute force and brute emotions.

    The categorical imperative isn’t a rule at all. It’s just a vague concept that would end up becoming a license to impose one’s subjective view of morality upon another.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 10:05 AM #95

    I agree with Mercel.  After this, no Samsung products for me.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 10:07 AM #96

    Quick question to the legal eagle’s here.

    Is the Samsung “Crisis of Design” memo a smoking gun?

    [forgive the cliches used in the above two comments]

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 07 August 2012 10:14 AM #97

    hledgard - 07 August 2012 01:05 PM

    I agree with Mercel.  After this, no Samsung products for me.

    Agreed.  My last appliance and TV purchases excluded Sammy from consideration.

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 11:17 AM #98

    John Molloy - 07 August 2012 01:07 PM

    Quick question to the legal eagle’s here.

    Is the Samsung “Crisis of Design” memo a smoking gun?

    [forgive the cliches used in the above two comments]

    I would say it was a piece of the puzzle. It clearly showed that Samsung was obsessed with Apple and it also showed specific ways in which Samsung had to change their products in order to compete with Apple. That’s very damning.

    Samsung tried to dismiss it as “hyperbolic” - just overwrought rhetoric.

    There’s two things that we cannot know. First, we can’t know the impression the testimony made upon the jurors. Was it riveting? Boring? Inconsequential?

    Second, we can’t know how prominent this piece of the puzzle will be after all is said and done. Samsung could refute it over the next three weeks. Even more likely, it could become lost in a sea of evidence.

    Still, from Apple’s point of view, it was excellent evidence.

    As an aside, I think the “smoking gun” evidence is the evidence that the number one reason Galaxy Tabs were returned to Best Buy was because people thought they had purchased iPad 2’s. THAT, it seems to me, is exactly Apple’s whole point and the reason they brought the lawsuit. I’ll be very interested in seeing how Samsung attempts to refute that evidence.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 11:44 AM #99

    Thanks for your input, John.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 12:04 PM #100

    FalKirk - 07 August 2012 01:55 AM
    Mercel - 07 August 2012 01:44 AM

    ^  Unbelievable.  I mean, why do people patronize such a disreputable company?  What is WRONG with people?

    The court should force Sammy to change its name to ShameSung for a year.

    You guys are so biased. (I think it’s hilarious that I’m the one saying this.)

    First, Samsung is just doing what competitors have done from the dawn of time. Don’t agree with this AT ALL.  I have been in the tech business for decades and have observed and been part of competition in all colors.  NEVER, have I seen a strategy based upon pure knockoffs and copying to the degree I see here. 

    Second, it appears that there is a culture of copying in Korea and some other asian nations. They’re probably shocked that this is even actionable. Irrelevant.  This is a global company that happens to have their HQ in Korea.  Of course they knew what they were doing.  If they really thought that there was nothing actionable, then why did they continue to shred e-mails after they knew about the action? 

    Third, there’s nothing disreputable in what they’re doing here. They may have crossed the line here, but its a legal line, not a moral line. Morals are subjective.  Destruction of e-mails crosses it for me, as does blatantly copying someone else’s innovation.  My morals tell me that the innovator deserves to be rewarded for his risk taking.  Not some blatent rip-off artist which is what Samsung is with their Mobile strategy. Maybe not amoral, but easily disreputable. That is clear, no matter how many high priced lawyers they put on the job to throw up fog and rewriting of history.

    In the law we talk about malum in se and malum prohibum. The former is reprehensible conduit. The latter is just prohibited conduct. This is clearly just prohibited conduct. There is nothing immoral going on here. It’s just business…perhaps taken a step (or two) too far.   Again, I do not agree.  “Just business” does not include flagrant copying in my books.

    Finally, a case should always sound good during the plaintiff’s portion of the case. The Plaintiff gets to put their best evidence before the Jury. A case isn’t nearly over until the defendant has their say. So far, the case looks strong and Samsung is on its heels. But there’ a lot of trial left to go.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 12:15 PM #101

    FalKirk - 07 August 2012 01:55 AM

    In the law we talk about malum in se and malum prohibum. The former is reprehensible conduit. The latter is just prohibited conduct. This is clearly just prohibited conduct. There is nothing immoral going on here. It’s just business…perhaps taken a step (or two) too far.

    Exactly, which leads me to believe (as I’ve stated before) that Samsung’s long term strategy is to grab Apple’s coat tails while the industry does a massive shakeout, leaving Samsung in the best position it can hope for in this new environment, #2.

    Samsung will happily pay fines, legal costs, etc, to insure their #2 status going forward.

    Samsung’s intentional copying, and the costs associated with doing so, are just costs of achieving #2.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 12:30 PM #102

    Lstream - 07 August 2012 03:04 PM

    “Just business” does not include flagrant copying in my books.[/color]

    Sure it does, if the plan is to achieve a specific goal (#2 manufacturer) before having to quit copying/pay fines, etc.  Look at Samsung’s focus before the iPhone.  The leaders were Nokia and RIMM.  Samsung understood that the paradigm had changed (while others did not) with the introduction of the iPhone.

    Samsung’s business model has always been that of a fast copier.  What Samsung needed in 2007, to remain relevant, was time, time for the blind to shake out, and Samsung to establish itself as the #2.  Copying the new (uncrowned) leader accomplishes that goal.

    Now, with MOT weakened to the point of being bought out for the value of its patents, RIMM reduced to selling feature handsets in the third world, Nokia reduced to accepting bailout monies from MSFT (which has since apparently abandoned them), and HTC struggling to make a profit, Samsung remains the only viable competitor to Apple’s iPhone/iPad.

    Samsung isn’t going to prevail in this action, and they don’t care.  Copying gave them immediate relevancy, while everyone else collapsed in the new paradigm.  THAT is priceless, and it is good business.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 12:39 PM #103

    Gregg Thurman - 07 August 2012 03:15 PM
    FalKirk - 07 August 2012 01:55 AM

    In the law we talk about malum in se and malum prohibum. The former is reprehensible conduit. The latter is just prohibited conduct. This is clearly just prohibited conduct. There is nothing immoral going on here. It’s just business…perhaps taken a step (or two) too far.

    Exactly, which leads me to believe (as I’ve stated before) that Samsung’s long term strategy is to grab Apple’s coat tails while the industry does a massive shakeout, leaving Samsung in the best position it can hope for in this new environment, #2.

    Samsung will happily pay fines, legal costs, etc, to insure their #2 status going forward.

    Samsung’s intentional copying, and the costs associated with doing so, are just costs of achieving #2.

    Apologies for the immaturity but I’d like to take a big #2 all over Samsung’s copycat products.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 02:14 PM #104

    Gregg Thurman - 07 August 2012 03:30 PM
    Lstream - 07 August 2012 03:04 PM

    “Just business” does not include flagrant copying in my books.[/color]

    Samsung isn’t going to prevail in this action, and they don’t care.  Copying gave them immediate relevancy, while everyone else collapsed in the new paradigm.  THAT is priceless, and it is good business.

    This is a jury trial and you can never be sure what a jury will do with their verdict.  Moreover, we are getting just bits and pieces of the court room exchanges.  While those bits sound like they favor Apple we don’t have the entire set of facts before us.  Neither is the trial over. So far Sammy has just been playing defense.  Still in the first half of the game.

         
  • Posted: 07 August 2012 02:19 PM #105

    Tuffett - 07 August 2012 03:39 PM
    Gregg Thurman - 07 August 2012 03:15 PM
    FalKirk - 07 August 2012 01:55 AM

    In the law we talk about malum in se and malum prohibum. The former is reprehensible conduit. The latter is just prohibited conduct. This is clearly just prohibited conduct. There is nothing immoral going on here. It’s just business…perhaps taken a step (or two) too far.

    Exactly, which leads me to believe (as I’ve stated before) that Samsung’s long term strategy is to grab Apple’s coat tails while the industry does a massive shakeout, leaving Samsung in the best position it can hope for in this new environment, #2.

    Samsung will happily pay fines, legal costs, etc, to insure their #2 status going forward.

    Samsung’s intentional copying, and the costs associated with doing so, are just costs of achieving #2.

    Apologies for the immaturity but I’d like to take a big #2 all over Samsung’s copycat products.

    Ummm, you have to keep it in mind that there are only 10 reasons to be in business.  The first is to make a profit, everything else (including “morality”) doesn’t matter.  That’s why you see firms doing stuff they should have known was not allowed (and paid the fines for doing it).  It’s a cost of doing business issue.

    It’s also why Apple continues to do business with one division of Samsung, and sues another division simultaneously.  These suits are not personal, they are just a formal way of arriving at a resolution to disputes.

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.