Originally Posted by kikkO
Because you and 99% of people on this forum don't understand Korea's copy culture.
No, I understand what it is. The Chinese do it. The Japanese, when they were a premier manufacturing giant 30-40 years ago (along with "Taiwan, R.O.C."-what used to be on the bottom of every toy car I got when I was a kid...), did it too. They send their people to tradeshows, draw pictures on notepads, take notes about function and stuff, then take it back home and make clones. That's gone on for decades.
However, 99% of people wouldn't be able to identify the differences between those two items...because...most people don't care. They can tell you what one of them looks like, if they own it.
I could understand the judge expecting the attorney to recognize their own hardware if they had been using one. However, the judge is *assuming* familiarity with the product. When in fact, an attorney for Samsung is only required to know the circumstances and charges brought in tort against them and prove them to be false allegations.
That's why I said: the judge could be perceived to be biased in doing that in Apple's favor. The majority of people on Earth have never held a Samsung or Apple pad. And if that judge has not seem proof that Samsung employees are any different, why can that judge assume otherwise?
That's why I think there's reason for a mistrial here.
I have no knowledge of the particulars of the case, but if you ask me the difference in shape and input on them is obvious just from pics on Google Images. They are distinctly different looking.
This is coming from someone who's never taken notice of the particulars of either until today.
But, whose to say that attorney is familiar with them from looks alone?