4 ms·

This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs

by sbuk 14y ago

This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see. One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time.

dsirijus 14y ago
I rather interpret it as internal struggle within people themselves. Personally, I go from Android to iOS fanboyism within a blink of an eye. I own both because of this internal indecisiveness. On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions. I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.
Shivetya 14y ago
the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision. Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?
- eckyptang 14y ago
  And this is where the Jury fails. A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at all.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    The jury consisted of 9 people.
- sbuk 14y ago
  This is precisely what I'm talking about. Some facts: * The jury was selected by both sides. * Having a patent does not preclude an individual from jury service, even if the case that is being sat is one that covers patent claims. "he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete" Pure emotive supposition on your part. "It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision." Not at all. This is an excellent example of cognitive bias. You disagree, for whatever reason, with the findings of the jury, so you rationalise your views and opinions based on this. To you, there simply is no rational explanation as to how Samsung lost. You invent constructs where the judge is corrupt or the jury is biased towards Apple, all based on extremely spurious conjecture. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Samsung were entirely wrong (I do believe that they crossed a line with the first implemetations of the Touchwiz UI and the early Galaxy handsets - Google told them as much), but to paint them as an entirely innocent and wronged party is unbelievably wide of the mark. "Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?" Yes. These boards. Everyday since the trial ended. It's getting like ground-hog day...
debacle 14y ago
If I was eating a billion dollar chicken, I'd sure as shit pick through the bones for every scrap of meat that was there.

by sbuk 14y ago

dsirijus 14y ago

I rather interpret it as internal struggle within people themselves. Personally, I go from Android to iOS fanboyism within a blink of an eye. I own both because of this internal indecisiveness. On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions. I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.

Shivetya 14y ago

the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision. Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?

eckyptang 14y ago
And this is where the Jury fails. A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at all.
- sbuk 14y ago
  The jury consisted of 9 people.
sbuk 14y ago
This is precisely what I'm talking about. Some facts: * The jury was selected by both sides. * Having a patent does not preclude an individual from jury service, even if the case that is being sat is one that covers patent claims. "he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete" Pure emotive supposition on your part. "It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision." Not at all. This is an excellent example of cognitive bias. You disagree, for whatever reason, with the findings of the jury, so you rationalise your views and opinions based on this. To you, there simply is no rational explanation as to how Samsung lost. You invent constructs where the judge is corrupt or the jury is biased towards Apple, all based on extremely spurious conjecture. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Samsung were entirely wrong (I do believe that they crossed a line with the first implemetations of the Touchwiz UI and the early Galaxy handsets - Google told them as much), but to paint them as an entirely innocent and wronged party is unbelievably wide of the mark. "Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?" Yes. These boards. Everyday since the trial ended. It's getting like ground-hog day...

debacle 14y ago

If I was eating a billion dollar chicken, I'd sure as shit pick through the bones for every scrap of meat that was there.