Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

What bias? No decisions were made yet, and the decision to suppress that "evidence" is perfectly justified!

Dummy. How they take it affects correct delivery. Accurate communication requires at least two people. You are clearly incapable of such.

While that is true, that doesn't make me responsible for the misunderstanding. As you mentioned (and well), accurate communication requires at least two people, and both has responsibilities. The sender is responsible for ensuring that the message is clear, and the receiver is responsible for interpreting it right, so, again, NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM,

Thats why you buy yourself a Bitfenix prodigy. You'd probably be amazed to find that the latest top-end consumer CPUs and a 680 will work extremely nicely on a Mini-ITX board, which is not all that large.

It's not just the box, it's also all the peripherals. A laptop has everything built-in.

If you don't care about the end result, why get involved in the first place?

I seldom get involved in anything except when I see people complain about something that I have a formed opinion about (in this case I am more interested in knowing whether I am right or in having my opinion refuted) or when my judgement is explicitly requested (in which case I would not be honest if I sugar coated my opinion). It is extremely uncommon for me to criticize anything directly unless it has a direct impact in my life and I can absolutely not adjust,

Linux Desktop? Nope. Desktops are dying anyway, almost everyone has moved to laptops.

This is unfortunate. Ever since I became a nomad (and switched to Apple) that I miss actually shopping for desktop hardware. Every time I enter a retail store and look at the high-end video cards I really really want to build a desktop, but it can't fit my luggage... The desktop PC is far from being dead and I am already missing it, I think it's gonna be one of those things that I will remember from early 21st century just like I miss tinkering with analog electronics in the 80s (no, I'm not old, I was born in that decade).

Year of the Linux game console, perhaps?

Rumor has it that Valve is building a console with PC hardware, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. They feel that the Windows and Mac App Stores represent a threat to Steam as a third party, so this may be part of their strategy to build a platform of their own. Blizzard has expressed similar feelings, which makes sense if we consider the rumor that they had and probably still have a third party service like Steam planned for battle.net (at least according to the leaked schedules which have been quite accurate, though battle.net third parties is overdue at this point).

If Apple wants to claim something of that magnitude they only need to let Samsung submit the evidence in question and demonstrate copying. Apple doesn't think they have a case there, so why do you?

How did you reach the conclusion that Apple doesn't think they have a case?

The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation.

So? The F700 was released in December 2007, "many months" later...

The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens.

That's not being disputed. Apple claims that those designs would have never been successful in the market without the iPhone to copy from because there were a lot of challenges to overcome in order to make them work. Apple even used the Prada, a phone that came out before the iPhone and failed horribly, to demonstrate this. While designing a phone with a touchscreen is trivial, designing a phone with a touchscreen that behaves correctly is not. It was not until the iPhone that everybody finally understood how to properly design touchscreen phones and implement touch-friendly firmwares that don't require stylii for anything.

The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly).

They might have dropped it because of the builtin keyboard making it sufficiently different.

I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups

I think it's sad to not actually understand what the issue is.

Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.

Absolutely, but would it have been successful design without Apple setting an example? I guess not. There's a long way between wishful thinking like drawing a few drafts based on an untested concept and actually building a product that works while betting the company in the process.

Some takes direct criticism well, others may not.

How they take it is their problem, not yours. You only have to make sure that the information is delivered correctly.

That's pretty disingenuous given that my Palm Treo had touch and no stylus in 2004. It was Windows Mobile 6.0, then upgraded to 6.5. Apple's advantage is that they had no legacy products or expectations to maintain so they could start over with a clean interface. When other manufacturers saw how clean it was they realized they had to put away their legacy products and move forward and we're all the better for it.

You contradict yourself. First you claim that other vendors had a legacy and thus couldn't change, and then you claim that after Apple there was no reason to not change? What stopped them from innovating like Apple did before Apple did? They didn't even have to bet their companies like Apple did! All they had to do was to create a new product line!

Additionaly, my Palm Treo had rounded corners! I used the screen lock so it didn't make calls. When in call it would go to the dial screen so you woudn't navigate the phone unlike earlier versions when you could find half typed contacts with your ear doing all the work. The built in SIP client was cool as hell too! The proximity sensor was just another method of dealing the same in-call or in-pocket problems which was a nice evolutionary step but hardly ground breaking or non-obvious.

Groundbreaking or not, many vendors struggled to understand how to actually make the proximity sensor work properly even AFTER they had an example to copy from. Most phones would just turn off the screen as soon as they sensed something close: the iPhone requires certain accelerometer data before it disables the screen, meaning holding it very close to your face so you can read something in the sun won't disable the display. It's this kind of detail that creates loyalty -- you don't notice these things while using the devices, but it doesn't take long until you start missing them once you move to another brand because suddenly things don't work as intuitively as you were used to.

I give Apple a lot of credit for shaking up the landscape and producing a polished product but this lawsuit seems ridiculous. When you're dealing with the shape of a calculator, its hard to think the form factor should be patent worthy.

That's because you re looking at design components individually rather than as a whole and thus missing the synergy. Fortunately the Judge gets the point and expressed it to the jury a lot better than I would.

Errr, no, the link you provided demonstrates that it is a public knowledge Samsung knows about the iPhone designs of 2006 now, it doesn't say anything about what Samsung knew in 2006. That's kinda the difference GGGP points out.

You are right, it does not demonstrate that Samsung had knowledge about Apple's designs before the iPhone launched, though that evidence is still refuted by Apple's release of designs from 2005, and Samsung could have guessed what was going on since, by their own admission, a lot of the components on the iPhone are manufactured by them.

"Here are some designs from 2006." is evidence. You raise questions that could affect how that evidence would be understood and treated by jurors, and it is Apple's right to present that evidence to jurors too. But that doesn't make it not evidence. It up to a jury to decide how much credibility to lend it and how it pertains to the charges, but they have to be shown it first.

It's only evidence when the possibility of the fact demonstrating that a belief is true, exists, which it doesn't in this context, for more than one reason, beginning from the Judge having previously ruled against its validity.

Excuse me, but article you link to doesn't say anything like that, only mention of Ive there is "The files contains a snippet of a deposition by former Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori who said that Appleâ(TM)s design chief Jonathan Ive told him to create a phone inspired by Sonyâ(TM)s designs", no mention of Ive publicly disclosing it in 2006 or Nishibori telling this to Samsung in 2006.

You miss the point. I provided that link to demonstrate that it is public knowledge that Samsung knew about the iPhone designs back in 2006, so the claim that I am confusing anything made in the GGP is invalid. I am not confusing anything, Samsung DID know about the iPhone designs back in 2006, and they lost the ability to claim plausible denial about that knowledge once they made it public. TLDR: They fucked themselves up.

You're conflating "Samsung is aware of these 2006 design mockups" and "Samsung was aware of these design mockups in 2006". One of those follows from available evidence, other one doesn't (and probably would entail an industrial espionage investigation).

No, I'm not. Jonathan Ive disclosed that himself in 2006, this is public knowledge, and before you accuse Apple of fabricating evidence, what's quoted there is Samsung's version of the story! Apple's lawyers are having it really easy in this trial, with Samsung shooting themselves in the feet every time they try to argue for their defense.

No it's not. It's about what an iPhone could look like if it had been created by SONY, and it postdates the 2005 design mockups which already resembled the iPhone 4/4S.

For starters it's their fault for missing the deadline. They have no plausible reason to miss a deadline for key evidence like this unless they were quickly creating the evidence (it has already been established that Samsung destroyed evidence even following a court order to retain it, so this wouldn't be too unlikely).

Secondly, that evidence isn't even evidence considering the existence of iPhone designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's demonstration of knowledge of what the iPhone would look like (by accusing Apple of copying SONY using a design from 2006).

Conclusion: there is absolutely no reason to accept that as evidence. The only purpose it would serve would be to confuse the jury and idiots from the public (which they evidently succeeded, otherwise I wouldn't have to reply to this).