Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wi-Fi Problems Dog Apple-Samsung Trial

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the it's-the-little-things dept.

The Courts 80

alphadogg (971356) writes "There's a new sign on the door to Courtroom 5 at the federal courthouse in San Jose, the home to the Apple v. Samsung battle that's playing out this month: 'Please turn off all cell phones.' For a trial that centers on smartphones and the technology they use, it's more than a little ironic. The entire case might not even be taking place if the market wasn't so big and important, but the constant need for connectivity of everyone is causing problems in the court, hence the new sign. The problems have centered on the system that displays the court reporter's real-time transcription onto monitors on the desks of Judge Lucy Koh, the presiding judge in the case, and the lawyers of Apple and Samsung. The system, it seems, is connected via Wi-Fi and that connection keeps failing."

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731197)

That, uhm, isn't the definition of irony.

Re:Not Irony (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 6 months ago | (#46731553)

Isn't the definition of irony that the situation is the opposite of what you would expect.

I would expect to be able to follow news events on my smartphone while sitting in a courtroom during a trial involving the two biggest players in the smartphone realm.
The fact that smartphones are causing traffic congestion isn't the ironic part.

Re:Not Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46732551)

I would expect to be able to follow news events on my smartphone while sitting in a courtroom during a trial involving the two biggest players in the smartphone realm.

I would expect the spectators in the gallery to provide respect to the proceedings of the case and possibly listen to what the various parties in the room have to say, rather than have them dicking about on their smartphones and laptops during the entire case. It is already commonplace to ban the use of mobile phones in many courtrooms across the States.

Re:Not Irony (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 6 months ago | (#46735939)

Well, the longer the court case goes along, the more constant publicity they can milk, so hey why don't we all start taking selfies of ourselves?

Um... (5, Informative)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 6 months ago | (#46731237)

Plug it in?

MOD PARENT UP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731509)

MOD PARENT UP!!!
This is the solution. If you want a reliable connection, used wired Internet.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 6 months ago | (#46731571)

MOD PARENT UP!!!
This is the solution. If you want a reliable connection, used wired Internet.

and IPv6.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 6 months ago | (#46733203)

Exactly. I have WiFi in my house, but my 'smart' TV, 'smart' DVD player, computer & three IPTV boxes are all connected via wired Cat6.

Re:Um... (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46731759)

Actually according to TFA they tried this, but for some reason the staff failed to complete the job. It was pretty vague about why, and it's pretty hard for me to think of an excuse I would accept if I were that judge.

Re:Um... (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 6 months ago | (#46731803)

Courthouses are often large old buildings with a lot of marble pillars, marble floors, and immovable walls. This may be why they used Wifi... It's just not feasible to drill a hole through 3 feet of marble to run Cat5.

Re:Um... (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#46731837)

Courthouses are often large old buildings with a lot of marble pillars, marble floors, and immovable walls. This may be why they used Wifi... It's just not feasible to drill a hole through 3 feet of marble to run Cat5.

... and yet they have power. So how did they do that... extension cords running all around the joint?

Re:Um... (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | about 6 months ago | (#46734495)

Maybe the building is old enought to have been projected with power, but no one thought about the possibility of adding more cords?

Re:Um... (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 6 months ago | (#46739121)

Yes, because everywhere that has a power socket also has an RJ-45 connector.

And no, homeplugs are not a reliable solution.

Re:Um... (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 months ago | (#46732057)

The problem is probably that after the judges and lawyers salaries are factored in they probably haven't got enough money to do IT properly. These guys will take the lion's share of any amount you throw at them.

Re:Um... (1)

Triv (181010) | about 6 months ago | (#46737975)

Source? Most US courts are understaffed (even judges) and over-scheduled.

http://www.decodedc.com/home/2... [decodedc.com]

Re:Um... (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 months ago | (#46742765)

Source? Most US courts are understaffed (even judges) and over-scheduled.

http://www.decodedc.com/home/2... [decodedc.com]

That doesn't mean they are underpayed and not soaking up all the resources. Lawyers always will want more money for the same level job. A bit cynical I know but I think a "scarcity" of lawyers is always going to be the case, because they never can actually solve anything.

OK, but ... (3, Funny)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 6 months ago | (#46731263)

The system, it seems, is connected via Wi-Fi and that connection keeps failing.

So I suppose if that DOESN'T fix it, they'll remove the sign and allow active cellphones again? (Hmm, I thought metal objects mostly wouldn't be allowed in the building. Is that only Federal stuff?) That being said, I could certainly understand a judge not wanting to hear ringtones in their active courtroom.

I listen to shows with captioning turned on for almost everything. I presume having this is the courtroom allows the judge to easily review testimony earlier in the trial? (Or are they listening to music on earbuds and only start to pay attention when the transcriptionist STARTS WRITING IN UPPER CASE? :-) )

Lastly, bring in a laptop and sit in the audience, and intercept or change the written record. "I didn't do it!" becomes "What's your problem, you slutty judge?" Or then again there's this guy [observer.com] ...

Re:OK, but ... (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about 6 months ago | (#46731667)

He must be related to the Nelson Mandela funeral interpreter.

Re:OK, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46732423)

"I didn't do it!" becomes "What's your problem, you slutty judge?" ...

"Just who are you calling judgemental?"

Re:OK, but ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46732643)

I listen to shows with captioning turned on for almost everything.

My grandparents used to do that when they were alive. I couldn't watch TV with them because captioning is usually crap and it bothered me. The dialogue and the captions too frequently disagree even on shows recorded months in advance.

Re:OK, but ... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 6 months ago | (#46733811)

I really enjoy when CC and the words diverge slightly. It exposes how people interpret differently.

Re:OK, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46735707)

Some channels, there are blank spots in closed captioning. Not sure why, if it's a broadcast issue.

Some shows (I think cartoons from the 90s) don't have closed captioning. Isn't that illegal?

Sometimes I see mistakes in closed captioning to the extent I think it's cheaply done--no reviewer.

Then there's those who are lazy and just use the original script I think. Like, for movies, and perhaps the actors ad-libbed, so what is said audio-wise is much longer than the shorter, different closed captioning.

Re:OK, but ... (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 6 months ago | (#46742917)

I've been watching some anime in English with English closed captioning -- there's some variance there. Dunno, but I've been ususally disappointed with my native language dialog -- the captioning usually makes better sense / expected dialog than the actual spoken dialog.

SO MUCH SO that I've gone to listening to Japanese while reading the English captions even when spoken English is available. (Huh? The Japanese voices sound all dramatic and all, while the English voices sound like little annoying teenie-boppers. What gives?) And not that I I know Japanese at ALL, but I can now pick up honorifics and very common phrases and -- for extremely obvious cases -- even notice when the CCs aren't portraying things quite correctly.

Re:OK, but ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46749489)

This has been a problem for a *very* long time.

The Japanese actors would play the part seriously, and the people who did the voice over just went "oh, it's just a cartoon, I'm supposed to sound silly".

Akira is pretty famous for that ... it was a good movie, and the translation wasn't terrible, but some of the voice performances were pretty bad. It got re-released several years (probably more by now) in which they did a much better job on the voices.

Some of the recent stuff which came out of Studio Ghibli did a lot better job of this, because good actors who took it seriously were employed from the beginning.

And, nowadays, when you can have Lucy Liu and Dustin Hoffman doing Kung Fu Panda, people have realized that you can't treat the voice overs as an afterthought and just throw any old terrible performance at it.

There have been numerous movies (in numerous languages) over the years that I've decided were far better in their original language with subtitles. Hindi/Bollywood movies are an example of this .. most of them don't have voice over, and some of the ones which do just completely ruin the tone of the film.

If you start out with the intent and resources to do a good job of it, it can be quite good. But for many years it was just a thrown together afterthought with really terrible results.

Though, one of my all time favorite examples of what happens when people do it badly is the movie Ultraviolet. The supposed Chins (ethnic Chinese I assume) are supposed to be speaking Chinese, but they can be heard saying "sin loi", which is Vietnamese for "I'm sorry" and which is one of a handful of Vietnamese words I know. I don't believe a single word of Chinese is spoken.

I asked a Vietnamese friend about it, and his response was something along the lines of "white people don't care, just any Asian language you can find because you think we all look alike".

Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (0)

Joshua.Niland (1483917) | about 6 months ago | (#46731289)

Wouldn't be the first time Apple products cause WIFI issues. It's all part of the larger Apple strategy to sell Airport series WAP's.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 6 months ago | (#46731343)

It's all part of the larger Apple strategy...

It's not an official Apple strategy until Samsung copies it. Zing. Fan the flames of fanboy rage. Wifi so serious?

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 6 months ago | (#46731443)

These days its the other way around. Samsung is the leader and Apple is following.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (0)

dimeglio (456244) | about 6 months ago | (#46731505)

I'd love you to be right but Samsung just copied (badly) Apple's fingerprint reader in the S5.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 6 months ago | (#46731515)

Hate to tell you finger print scanner is NOT a new technology that apple would like to make its isheep believe.

By your definition Samsung follows all (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46731805)

Hate to tell you this but by your definition Samsung is not leading anything, as they are just doing things other companies (not even Apple) did long ago.

Everyone is iterating on older ideas, Samsung just likes to use Apple's iterations as a base and sometimes screws it up (see: fingerprint sensor). The documents from the trial prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt; Samsung looks at how Apple does something in great detail, then thinks of a few alternatives, then says "screw it, just do what Apple did".

Re:By your definition Samsung follows all (1)

horza (87255) | about 6 months ago | (#46732515)

Sure, I love the iPhone with a movie projector built in. Oh that doesn't exist, only Samsung does one. Apple ripped of the LG Prada and ran with it. They got lucky in their timing. Since everybody else has overtaken them. Who cares if they throw in a fingerprint sensor, they've been around forever on keyboards and never taken off. If Samsung throw it in as a 'ticklist' item not to be outdone then fine but nobody is going to buy a phone for such a gimmick.

Hope the sign on the door doesn't have rounded corners, otherwise the Samsung defence team wouldn't be able to go back into court for fear of infringement.

Phillip.

Re:By your definition Samsung follows all (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 6 months ago | (#46732691)

Samsung doesn't do a pico projector phone anymore.

The problem Samsung has is that they're throwing a lot of shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Like the humidity sensor in the S4. The only thing that has stuck so far has been the Note's SPen. Even then, I don't ever actually see many people use them.

Re:By your definition Samsung follows all (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 6 months ago | (#46733847)

Humidity sensor is usually packaged with a temperature sensor, (http://www.adafruit.com/products/1638) so its not that strange that they used it. Hell it might have been there for previous versions and they only exposed it via software in the S4.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#46732019)

The patent is probably a tad more specific than "fingerprint scanner". It's easy to imagine all sorts of novel developments in fingerprint scanning technology that would absolutely deserve to be patentable. Not saying that's the case here. I'm not familiar with the case, and don't particularly care. But I see this on Slashdot all the time -- people simplifying a patent down to a single phrase, and then declaring it to be obvious.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 6 months ago | (#46732673)

finger print scanner that small that works 99% of the time?

Maybe not *new*, but Apple did get there first. The Atrix had just simply awful performance with their scanner.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 6 months ago | (#46733857)

Laptops have had them forever. 'First' is completely subjective in this case.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 6 months ago | (#46737815)

That works nearly every single time? Every laptop finger print scanner I've used SUCKED. Accuracy was always terrible AND slow. Granted, I've had limited experience. On a Gateway laptop from 2008 and a Lenovo Thinkpad from 2010.

Touch ID was the first time I've used biometrics and it wasn't a total crapshoot if it'd work.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (2)

nobuddy (952985) | about 6 months ago | (#46731613)

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46740585)

It's all part of the larger Apple strategy...

It's not an official Apple strategy until Samsung copies it. Zing. Fan the flames of fanboy rage. Wifi so serious?

Good luck, Apple strategies are so sleek and fine they are worth at least an extra $100. Can't copy that.

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (2)

fred133 (449698) | about 6 months ago | (#46731945)

I've had same issues when Apple items are on any mixed OS network, constant connectivity issues for all, always suspected the shiny red (white) devices as the culprit ,never could prove it. this pretty much cinches for me, apparently, their network stack is almost as "F" up as M$'s is....
Doesn't anyone follow the RFC's? Just leave sh*t alone! they gotta make it proprietary... guess to keep the investors happy...

Re:Apple Products never play nice with WIFI (1)

dkf (304284) | about 6 months ago | (#46732601)

I've had same issues when Apple items are on any mixed OS network

That's almost certainly the fault of using shitty access points. Anyone doing large-scale WiFi deployments is going to have to cope with lots of different client systems connecting all at once; there's no excuse for getting it wrong. Consumer grade stuff is definitely worse, but it only really hits home once there's a lot of devices loading everything up.

Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46731381)

Maybe I just don't understand what is really happening here, but shouldn't the wi-fi network for official court usage be secured so only those terminals are able to connect. The cell phones and stuff shouldn't be causing an issue, unless a bunch of people are trying to operate ad-hoc networks to do tethering with cellular data service.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731427)

Jump to conclusions much? (That everything is allowed on the network)
RTFA
Oh this is slashdot.
Carry on.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46731523)

There are plenty of other ways to cause problems, even if the network is secured.

The more likely problem is that there is simply too much interference from devices providing their own WiFi hotspots. For instance, if enough reporters are carrying 3G hotspots, those will eventually cause problems for both each other and for existing WiFi networks in the vicinity. Something similar actually happened a few years back during an Apple keynote speech, where Steve Jobs had to ask the attendees to turn off their WiFi hotspots so that he could demo some tech on stage. Enough did it that they were eventually able to demo the tech, and it wouldn't surprise me if a similar problem is happening here.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (2)

adolf (21054) | about 6 months ago | (#46731795)

...which is a problem that is better-solved by having the local conglomerate provide a temporary, fast(ish) pipe for press over cable/*DSL, with a couple of well-configured 802.11g access points on non-overlapping channels (and another 802.11n at 5GHz, just because), with some decent QoS rules on a router and the WPA key of the day taped to the front of the judge's bench.

Have the court add it to the court costs. It's not even (relative) pennies on this scale, and it is in-keeping with some other things that court costs provide for: HVAC, lights, power, building maintenance...

Or, you know, hardwiring the court recorder's system....which has no business using 802.11 on ISM bands to begin with.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who could optimistically have this all going, and going well, before lunch...or at worst, mid-afternoon on a lazy Saturday, with some behind-the-scenes tweaking on Monday morning to match traffic expectations with reality.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46731819)

Oh, absolutely. I'm merely explaining one possible source for the problems. By no means am I suggesting that this is an insurmountable issue.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

adolf (21054) | about 6 months ago | (#46731845)

Excellent. Agreement on /., who'da thought?

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 months ago | (#46732131)

...which is a problem that is better-solved by having the local conglomerate provide a temporary, fast(ish) pipe for press over cable/*DSL, with a couple of well-configured 802.11g access points on non-overlapping channels (and another 802.11n at 5GHz, just because), with some decent QoS rules on a router and the WPA key of the day taped to the front of the judge's bench.

And the press will still ignore largely it, bring in all their crap, and turn it on.

Or, you know, hardwiring the court recorder's system...

This is the best solution. But running wire is a PITA.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

adolf (21054) | about 6 months ago | (#46732191)

This is the best solution. But running wire is a PITA.

But the wire is already there.

Ever work on cabling in a courtroom after, say, 2005? I have. There's Cat5* reasonably close to all of the requisite points, already. There is at least one computer on the judge's bench, also hardwired.

Network cabling in the courts is a PITA, but it's already been done.

*: No, maybe not 5e or 6, but whatever: Even common gigabit performs just fine, by specification, on the plain-old Cat5 that we've had for decades now. There may also be Cat3 installed, but that's also a perfectly cromulent way to get 10Mbps 802.3 10base-T between endpoints on the Court Recorder system...which ought to be plenty, even with fast-talking lawyers driving the content therein.

And the press will still ignore largely it, bring in all their crap, and turn it on.

Then they dig their own grave. Let them. At least the proceedings will continue without interference.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46733119)

Have you worked on every courtroom and/or is there a legal requirement for courtrooms to have wired Ethernet connections? Otherwise one can only _assume_ that it have been installed.

However even if there have been no wires installed it should be possible to use the power lines for internal networking. E.g. HomePlug is standardized and IIRC pretty secure too (AES encrypted).

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

adolf (21054) | about 6 months ago | (#46760779)

Extrapolation and assumption are not the same thing.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 6 months ago | (#46732885)

The best solution for the court's display system would be to hard-wire it so they would not have to worry about WiFi.

Putting up routers with temporary internet access won't help them if reporters and whoever else is in the room continue using their own hotspot or ad-hoc network - people in the room might not like the idea of going through the public WiFi or having to re-configure all their own wireless stuff.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 6 months ago | (#46731549)

Contrary to popular belief, the wireless media is not unlimited. If every other device mess with wifi frequencies (or close enough to them), it will cause issue. It's the same thing that happen in dense apartment buildings where everyone get his own wireless access point (everyone get crappy wifi).

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46731713)

If every other device mess with wifi frequencies (or close enough to them), it will cause issue. It's the same thing that happen in dense apartment buildings where everyone get his own wireless access point (everyone get crappy wifi).

Yes... that's what I meant by "unless a bunch of people are trying to operate ad-hoc networks to do tethering with cellular data service" -- interference from other networks operating in the courtroom.

I wasn't aware this trial was so popular, I haven't heard that anyone is live-blogging it, so I wonder who all these people are who feel they need to have an internet connection running during the trial. I assume the counsel brings their presentation materials with them already on their laptop hard drives at the start of a session.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46731649)

unless a bunch of people are trying to operate ad-hoc networks to do tethering with cellular data service.

That's one that created problems for me a couple of times. It's a good short range WiFi jammer and some people forget to turn it off.

Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 6 months ago | (#46733887)

The 'air' can only hold so much data. If you have an wireless Access Point on one network and I have an Access Point on another, we split the available 'air' bandwidth. The room can only hold so much data, and everyone shares the frequencies regardless of the network configuration.

Breaking Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731399)

"problem dog"

Doesn't have to be Wifi (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 6 months ago | (#46731435)

I have a pair of wireless gaming headphones that use the same 2.4Ghz band as Wifi but not the same protocol. Some people have interference problems and have to change the channel for their AP.

Re:Doesn't have to be Wifi (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46732639)

And that, sir, is why unlicensed stuff is crap.

Laziness (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 6 months ago | (#46731521)

This system should have never been designed to be used over a wireless network.

Re:Laziness (1)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46732499)

Perhaps they're using Android, which has had a problem connecting to certain routers for years which apparently is an intractable problem, fixable by neither Google, the router or the handset manufacturers. Somebody clearly isn't following the standards. But who?

Wow... in my house I avoid WiFi for critical links (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 6 months ago | (#46731575)

If I want a reliable connection in my house, I hard-wire. It is the only way I can control the physical layer of the network. Once I go wireless, I cede control of the physical layer to forces unknown.

Re:Wow... in my house I avoid WiFi for critical li (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731719)

The reason they don't do this is because many court reports like to be within a certain distance of whomever is talking and many are surprising particular. For example, there is one in my local district that insists on being exactly four feet away and at a forty-five degree angle to whomever is speaking. Additionally, sometimes the real-time transcription programs take two people to operate: one to type in the words phonetically and one to change it to actual English if the computer's algorithm is a miss, which can be common in cases with highly technical words. Finally, there is probably multiple court reporters taking turns because it is very tiring to do for long periods of time because of the concentration required and each reporter would have their own stenotype.

Re:Wow... in my house I avoid WiFi for critical li (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46732649)

The obvious solution is to use a non-wifi wireless networking technology, of which there are several. The traffic is extremely low-bandwidth, so there's no reason why this shouldn't work. XBee, for example, which is available in non-2.4GHz flavors.

Re:Wow... in my house I avoid WiFi for critical li (1)

bigtreeman (565428) | about 6 months ago | (#46736423)

Yep I've got a blue wire under by desk, but she believes in wi-fi and just seeks my help and advice every time she looses connection, such is life.

PlUS 4, Troll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46731581)

WiFi problems (1)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 6 months ago | (#46731617)

They should be using Bluetooth!

Easy solution: (3, Funny)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 6 months ago | (#46731747)

Judge just says, "First to permanently fix it for us wins the case."

Re:Easy solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46732167)

That doesn't make a damn bit of sense since the Republicans have already declared who won. They rule our state with an iron fist, and no one contradicts them. Yee recently did, and he is looking at prison time. Us peons are not allowed to even complain or we will get beaten. My roommate recently lost his two front top teeth to those Republicans.

Get a room (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#46731757)

If Apple and Samsung are going to dance this much they should build their own hall. And while they're at it Apple should ask Google to dance because that is what she really wants.

Transcription (2)

damicatz (711271) | about 6 months ago | (#46732163)

Why do they need real time transcription screens? Courts have operated for thousands of years without such devices just fine. They can always view the transcription later.

Preferences (1)

Immerial (1093103) | about 6 months ago | (#46732633)

Maybe the judge has her preferences set to Plain Text ;)

Re:Transcription (1)

JazzHarper (745403) | about 6 months ago | (#46732661)

Why do they need real time transcription screens?

Because of court reporters like this: http://time.com/48136/court-re... [time.com]

Re:Transcription (1)

Monoman (8745) | about 6 months ago | (#46733267)

Courts operated without cell phones and Internet connectivity too. They can always check FB and upload their work later.

FrankyS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46733769)

They need it so that lawyers can ask follow up questions in real time, without having to have the reporter read something back and break up their flow. Also, some lawyers may be hard of hearing.

Remember too that it is the parties paying for all this stuff - including the court reporter. The judge gets a free copy, but all the tech is split by the parties. I know as I used to work in a courtroom and now work in a law firm. At least in New York, it is very possible to set up a wired connection, including to and from the court reporter's machine, to avoid all the interference and lag issues that come up with Wifi.

This just illustrates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46732651)

This just illustrates something I've tried to get across to the techie elite. There's a host of situations where wireless doesn't work, primarily because the density of users is too great. Apple PR events illustrate that all too well, as does a 'hot' trial. Too many people trying to use WiFi or 3G becomes a disaster.
There may also be situations where signals from multiple nearby electronics systems mix and create all sorts of bizarre, unpredictable interference. As a federal building that court may have communications systems on the roof that create that. For more, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation
The solution is to recognize that wireless can't always replace wired. I've tried in the past to get Apple to create an Ethernet equivalent if MagSafe and release it to the world to no available. But that's precisely what courtrooms, public events, hospitals, banking etc. need--a quick-to-connect wired version of Ethernet, one that's so easy and safe to connect that its only a little more trouble than going wireless.

Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46733071)

Transcription screens are a justification of the financial waste in the system. You'd think with all these smartphones, they'd be able to get updates outside the courtroom. And presumably a lot cheaper, too.

dog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46734835)

when I saw the word dog I thought of the four-legged animal, Canis lupus familiaris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

Not about cellphones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46740489)

For a trial that centers on smartphones and the technology they use

The trial isn't about cellphones. It's about the US legal profession shoving unethical practices down everyone else's throat.

The legal (and governmental) ethics problems with the current patent system are well established. The logic that shows the ethics problems exist is comprehensible to any intelligent high school student. Until the ethics problems are dealt with, the entire system is invalid.

The US legal profession is showing the same stubbornness with respect to this issue that they showed with respect to ending slavery, or ending the "separate but not actually equal system". Just as with the patent system, everyone with a functioning brain was able to figure out these things were wrong, but the legal profession didn't want want to do the right thing.

It took decades to get them to acknowledge that the things they were doing were wrong before, how long will it take this time?

As long is somebody with lots of money is willing to pay them, it appears the majority of US legal professionals have no concern with right or wrong, ethics, or integrity.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?