6 ms·

You're inventing a false narrative, whole cloth.

KirinDave 14y ago
They said exactly what was claimed. Grep for for "bogged" and read again. Then again, maybe that's not what he meant to say. Because as read, these quotes suggest some pretty absurd things.
- flatline3 14y ago
  That would be because they're selectively quoted, out of context, by a biased party.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    What part is out of context? The fact that they skipped the question? The fact that you admitted they did as well? They said they skipped the question. They skipped the question. The contention was they skipped the question. You disagreed, and then agreed. You are acting the part of a troll, and being purposefully obtuse, and dishonest.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    Groklaw has been a pretty reliable source for years now. Its disappointing that them presenting an opinion means they are labeled as "biased."
    - mbreese 14y ago
      Groklaw has been a very reliable source for information, but to call them unbiased is naive. Groklaw has always taken an editorial viewpoint. SCO vs IBM? Oracle vs Google? Apple vs Samsung? They always have their favorites, so their analysis tends to skew that way. They don't try to hide it, and their reputation is top notch, but don't claim they aren't biased. Normally, their viewpoint is right in line with most of the tech world. It just so happens that this time around, the tech camp is pretty well split on who the good guy was in this case.
      - KirinDave 14y ago
        It is one thing to interpret events, it's another entirely to suggest they are biased and therefore unreliable in their reporting or interpretation.
        nirvana 14y ago
        Funny how anyone posting on here who doesn't take a stridently anti-Apple position is accused of being "biased" (even when making ideologically neutral comments, I saw the other day)... yet pointing out that an agenda driven site, which has presented distorted and, frankly, dishonest, reporting of the situation is "biased" is somehow beyond the pale. The reason you feel this way is because you're biased. It's ok, I'm biased too. The problem is, you guys seem to think that you can accuse anyone of being "biased" as if it were a counter argument that excuses you from the need to defend your points. Here you're derailing the discussion because someone hat the temerity to speak the truth: Groklaw is biased. In fact, "biased" is being generous. They're driven by ideology to the point of being dishonest. This article is a good example with their selective quoting and their lies about what was done. For instance, the claim that the jurors had only 2 days to consider the evidence is a lie. They had the whole trial.
        KirinDave 14y ago
        But, ah, nirvana... where did I call anyone biased? Can you find a single instance? You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise. Do you really think that people are upset about Samsung and Apple? They're upset about software patents and how ludicrously easy they are to get and yet how absurdly difficult they are to render invalid. The jury here says they decided (under the advice and guidance of a patent holder) to stop debating the prior art issue. This is what we have a problem with. For what it's worth, I think Samsung did attempt to copy Apple with its first round of phones and they did a damn poor job of it. Cheap knock offs looked like cheap knock offs, and I think they were made willfully. However, I think many of Apple's patents are invalid because they do not constitute real, protectable innovation. If this were Samsung vs. HTC I'd be hoping for exactly the same outcome: a demonstration of the facile nature of software patents in the US. They do nothing to protect innovators; they only serve to artificially limit competition. For the sake of the industry and the economy I live and work in, they need to be radically reformed.
    - veemjeem 14y ago
      Every news source is biased. It's a bit naive to think someone is reporting it with a historian-balanced viewpoint. Some people think NPR is "fair and balanced" only to find out they actually lean left. Groklaw has always reported favorably for linux during the SCO vs IBM trials -- there's definitely bias in the reporting. They tend to pick the side that wins them the most readers. Had they picked the "evil" SCO side in the trials, nobody would share the groklaw articles.
      - Falling3 14y ago
        NPR is unbiased. Reality leans left.
  - esolyt 14y ago
    Well, you can read the same quote from CNET if Groklaw is the issue. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl... I hope you don't consider CNET biased. If anything, they are usually criticized for being Apple-biased.
    - mbreese 14y ago
      The cnet article was the original source for the Groklaw quote. The juror in the quote didn't mention anything about possibly going back to the issue. We don't know if cnet didn't run that part of the quote (why would they, they get more clicks with more controversy), or if the juror just didn't mention it. We do know that he isn't quoted as saying, "oh yeah, we never got back around to it". And since they explicitly had to make the choice on the instructions (Y/N) on infringement, the safer assumption is that they did get back to it.
      - Natsu 14y ago
        This is the same jury that awarded Apple $2M for a phone that, according to them, did not actually infringe upon any patents. Fortunately, the court fixed that up for them. Given that they also have been quoted as not needing the jury instructions, actively ignored those instructions by indicating that the damages awarded were punitive rather than compensatory, and that they could have spent, at most, a few minutes on each of the hundreds of questions, it's hardly out of line to think that this verdict was rushed.
      - codeka 14y ago
        My understanding is that there were two jurers who were unconvinced about the prior art thing. It seems to me like what actually happened is that, rather than trying to convince those two jurers (i.e. coming to a unanimous decision), they just went with "majority rules". Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that's what they did, but equally there's no evidence to suggest that they eventually went back to that question and debated it further. Given that they admitted to ignoring the instructions on punitive vs. compensatory damages, it's not a stretch to imagine they also ignored the instructions on coming to a unanimous decision.
jasonlotito 14y ago
> The quotes that I said lacked context and don't actually say what is claimed? Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing: "The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down."" Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim. Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim. Claim: They skipped a question. Quote: We skipped a question. I think it's fair to say they skipped a question. Even you admit to this with your own quote: "As far as I can tell, there's no evidence from those quotes that they skipped prior art, so much as skipped the task to move forward on others before circling back around to it." You say here that there is no evidence that they skipped, but there is evidence the skipped the question and most probably eventually came back to it later. However, skipping did occur, which was the original contention backed up by statements from those who would know. It would seem that you are the one trying to invent, poorly, as you can't even avoid contradicting yourself in your own comment. But, you might ask, why would skipping and coming back matter as long as they addressed the question. Context. The questions were ordered in a specific order. Addressing them out of order is, in essence, answering the questions "out of context." Indeed, the quotes suggest (though admittedly not directly) that by skipping the question, they were able to continue. But if that question had been answered as they had expected it to, would it have impacted the outcome? I believe so. After all, the context in which you answer a question determines the answer (which is fairly obvious). In the end, you are trying to paint the jurors in a different light. One in which they abided by the rules set forth (which they've already admitted to not doing[1]) and using the worksheets provided to reach the judgement (again, something they've admitted to modifying). So no, I'm not inventing anything. Couple that with the "expertise" offered by a patent holder, it's fairly obvious there are issues with the ruling. That all being said, maybe it's okay the jury ignore the provided worksheets and rewrote them. Maybe it's okay that they ignore instructions given to them by the judge. After all, they are the jury, and they our last line of defense. If we can ask a jury to find someone innocent facing an unjust law, we can expect them to make their voice heard in other cases as well. Regardless, my point still stands: They skipped a question, they admitted to it, as did you, and you seem foolishly trying to take on other conditions as if somehow that makes the "fact" untrue. Honestly, how can you even suggest they didn't skip the question, and then say they did, and try to blame someone else for inventing false narratives? I mean, besides being dishonest? [1] They were instructed: "You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." However, what they "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

They said exactly what was claimed. Grep for for "bogged" and read again. Then again, maybe that's not what he meant to say. Because as read, these quotes suggest some pretty absurd things.

flatline3 14y ago
That would be because they're selectively quoted, out of context, by a biased party.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  What part is out of context? The fact that they skipped the question? The fact that you admitted they did as well? They said they skipped the question. They skipped the question. The contention was they skipped the question. You disagreed, and then agreed. You are acting the part of a troll, and being purposefully obtuse, and dishonest.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  Groklaw has been a pretty reliable source for years now. Its disappointing that them presenting an opinion means they are labeled as "biased."
  - mbreese 14y ago
    Groklaw has been a very reliable source for information, but to call them unbiased is naive. Groklaw has always taken an editorial viewpoint. SCO vs IBM? Oracle vs Google? Apple vs Samsung? They always have their favorites, so their analysis tends to skew that way. They don't try to hide it, and their reputation is top notch, but don't claim they aren't biased. Normally, their viewpoint is right in line with most of the tech world. It just so happens that this time around, the tech camp is pretty well split on who the good guy was in this case.
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      It is one thing to interpret events, it's another entirely to suggest they are biased and therefore unreliable in their reporting or interpretation.
      - nirvana 14y ago
        Funny how anyone posting on here who doesn't take a stridently anti-Apple position is accused of being "biased" (even when making ideologically neutral comments, I saw the other day)... yet pointing out that an agenda driven site, which has presented distorted and, frankly, dishonest, reporting of the situation is "biased" is somehow beyond the pale. The reason you feel this way is because you're biased. It's ok, I'm biased too. The problem is, you guys seem to think that you can accuse anyone of being "biased" as if it were a counter argument that excuses you from the need to defend your points. Here you're derailing the discussion because someone hat the temerity to speak the truth: Groklaw is biased. In fact, "biased" is being generous. They're driven by ideology to the point of being dishonest. This article is a good example with their selective quoting and their lies about what was done. For instance, the claim that the jurors had only 2 days to consider the evidence is a lie. They had the whole trial.
        KirinDave 14y ago
        But, ah, nirvana... where did I call anyone biased? Can you find a single instance? You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise. Do you really think that people are upset about Samsung and Apple? They're upset about software patents and how ludicrously easy they are to get and yet how absurdly difficult they are to render invalid. The jury here says they decided (under the advice and guidance of a patent holder) to stop debating the prior art issue. This is what we have a problem with. For what it's worth, I think Samsung did attempt to copy Apple with its first round of phones and they did a damn poor job of it. Cheap knock offs looked like cheap knock offs, and I think they were made willfully. However, I think many of Apple's patents are invalid because they do not constitute real, protectable innovation. If this were Samsung vs. HTC I'd be hoping for exactly the same outcome: a demonstration of the facile nature of software patents in the US. They do nothing to protect innovators; they only serve to artificially limit competition. For the sake of the industry and the economy I live and work in, they need to be radically reformed.
  - veemjeem 14y ago
    Every news source is biased. It's a bit naive to think someone is reporting it with a historian-balanced viewpoint. Some people think NPR is "fair and balanced" only to find out they actually lean left. Groklaw has always reported favorably for linux during the SCO vs IBM trials -- there's definitely bias in the reporting. They tend to pick the side that wins them the most readers. Had they picked the "evil" SCO side in the trials, nobody would share the groklaw articles.
    - Falling3 14y ago
      NPR is unbiased. Reality leans left.
- esolyt 14y ago
  Well, you can read the same quote from CNET if Groklaw is the issue. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl... I hope you don't consider CNET biased. If anything, they are usually criticized for being Apple-biased.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    The cnet article was the original source for the Groklaw quote. The juror in the quote didn't mention anything about possibly going back to the issue. We don't know if cnet didn't run that part of the quote (why would they, they get more clicks with more controversy), or if the juror just didn't mention it. We do know that he isn't quoted as saying, "oh yeah, we never got back around to it". And since they explicitly had to make the choice on the instructions (Y/N) on infringement, the safer assumption is that they did get back to it.
    - Natsu 14y ago
      This is the same jury that awarded Apple $2M for a phone that, according to them, did not actually infringe upon any patents. Fortunately, the court fixed that up for them. Given that they also have been quoted as not needing the jury instructions, actively ignored those instructions by indicating that the damages awarded were punitive rather than compensatory, and that they could have spent, at most, a few minutes on each of the hundreds of questions, it's hardly out of line to think that this verdict was rushed.
    - codeka 14y ago
      My understanding is that there were two jurers who were unconvinced about the prior art thing. It seems to me like what actually happened is that, rather than trying to convince those two jurers (i.e. coming to a unanimous decision), they just went with "majority rules". Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that's what they did, but equally there's no evidence to suggest that they eventually went back to that question and debated it further. Given that they admitted to ignoring the instructions on punitive vs. compensatory damages, it's not a stretch to imagine they also ignored the instructions on coming to a unanimous decision.

jasonlotito 14y ago

> The quotes that I said lacked context and don't actually say what is claimed? Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing: "The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down."" Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim. Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim. Claim: They skipped a question. Quote: We skipped a question. I think it's fair to say they skipped a question. Even you admit to this with your own quote: "As far as I can tell, there's no evidence from those quotes that they skipped prior art, so much as skipped the task to move forward on others before circling back around to it." You say here that there is no evidence that they skipped, but there is evidence the skipped the question and most probably eventually came back to it later. However, skipping did occur, which was the original contention backed up by statements from those who would know. It would seem that you are the one trying to invent, poorly, as you can't even avoid contradicting yourself in your own comment. But, you might ask, why would skipping and coming back matter as long as they addressed the question. Context. The questions were ordered in a specific order. Addressing them out of order is, in essence, answering the questions "out of context." Indeed, the quotes suggest (though admittedly not directly) that by skipping the question, they were able to continue. But if that question had been answered as they had expected it to, would it have impacted the outcome? I believe so. After all, the context in which you answer a question determines the answer (which is fairly obvious). In the end, you are trying to paint the jurors in a different light. One in which they abided by the rules set forth (which they've already admitted to not doing[1]) and using the worksheets provided to reach the judgement (again, something they've admitted to modifying). So no, I'm not inventing anything. Couple that with the "expertise" offered by a patent holder, it's fairly obvious there are issues with the ruling. That all being said, maybe it's okay the jury ignore the provided worksheets and rewrote them. Maybe it's okay that they ignore instructions given to them by the judge. After all, they are the jury, and they our last line of defense. If we can ask a jury to find someone innocent facing an unjust law, we can expect them to make their voice heard in other cases as well. Regardless, my point still stands: They skipped a question, they admitted to it, as did you, and you seem foolishly trying to take on other conditions as if somehow that makes the "fact" untrue. Honestly, how can you even suggest they didn't skip the question, and then say they did, and try to blame someone else for inventing false narratives? I mean, besides being dishonest? [1] They were instructed: "You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." However, what they "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."