How Apple v. Samsung Was Explained To the Jury 330
jfruh writes "10 jurors have been sworn in for the Apple v. Samsung case, which is at the heart of the ongoing patent disputes over the companies' smartphones. While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law, the jury is at least in theory supposed to be something of a blank slate. Thus, it's interesting to see the detailed instructions Judge Lucy Koh gave to the jury, covering everything from the differences between utility and design patents to how to measure the credibility of witnesses."
Re:Here's how it was explained (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's how it was explained (Score:5, Informative)
Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.
Re:Here's how it was explained (Score:4, Informative)
Think of it this way - instead of Umpire's at a baseball game calling balls/strikes/outs MLB
decides it would be better for unpartial outsiders to come in and call the game. When they arrive
they don't know the rules - so on coach argues safe and the other coach argues out but you
didn't know what safe or out even meant and what actions lead to them it would be hard for
you to make an informed decision - so before hearing the arguments from opposing coaches
who (since they are opposing) will be syaing the exact opposite of each other, the league has
an expert explain all the rules of the game to you and tells you what information to use when
making your decision (i.e. what you saw/heard, video replay, etc.) and what *not* to consider
(how loud a coach yells, how much spit is drooling don his chin, etc.)
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Informative)
A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design.
This is an erroneous claim. To see why, it is instructive to see what the US Patent Office has to say about design patents:
"A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.
The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:
35 USC 171: Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.
[...]
35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or (c) he has abandoned the invention, or (d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122 (b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 orsection 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
35 USC 103: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identic
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Informative)
The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric fucktonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.
Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)
Apple ain't making that mistake.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:3, Informative)
So what?
Did the facts support the ruling? Or are you just assuming BIAS!!
"All Things D got a copy of Koh's order, and we just gave it a quick read. Turns out that she granted the injunction due to the strength of the merits of Apple's case and the unlikelihood that Samsung would invalidate Apple's design patent -- the court already held that the 10.1 is "virtually indistinguishable" from the iPad's design and likely infringes Apple's IP. Furthermore, Judge Koh held that, because Apple and Samsung are direct competitors in the tablet space and "design mattered more to customers in making tablet purchases," Apple would be irreparably harmed by further 10.1 sales. Those two factors outweighed any hardship suffered by Samsung, and thus, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was stricken from US shelves."
- http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/26/judge-koh-stops-us-sales-of-galaxy-tab-10-1-puts-a-smack-down-o/ [engadget.com]
Any legal arguments you have against that? Note legal, not made up shit.
Re:Function based design (Score:5, Informative)
You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.
You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular.
Yet strangely enough no-one actually did all this totally-obvious stuff with a phone before the iPhone was released.
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Function based design (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Function based design (Score:2, Informative)
LG did.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:0, Informative)
I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh
Yes, that is what I said (No Period)
I do not know where you learn (incorrect usage of a past participle -know- (and I assume here the person you are referring to has already been to an institution and has since left?, correct is to say 'I do not know where you learned') your logic (where implies from, chop it.), the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship (Made up word, relationship explains here what you mean just fine minus the co-, or you could restructure to use correlation) at all (No Period)
I can be concern (sigh,I think you mean 'I can/could/should? be concerned for) your conduct, or the conduct of a child, but that does not mean I am concerned with your (ah so you mean could be)"BIAS" or the child's "BIAS" Again No Period!
Or perhaps you should re-take English 101 (buh bow, you are assuming that the person has taken English 101; just as I assume you have done so too... Or have you?) Again No Period!! Although in this sense I think you are directing an attack and should have used the exclamation mark!!!
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:4, Informative)
(Submitting this comment again, since it apparently didn't get accepted the first time)
As I mentioned above, according to the US Patent Office, Apple's design met their criteria to merit the awarding of a patent. Whether or not the jury, and likely the appeal courts, agree, is still debatable.
To elaborate a bit on this, and also better refine by above post, Apple's design patents do not cover all rectangular-shaped electronic devices with rounded corners. Apple's design patents, e.g., for the iPad (D504,889, and others), are rather precise, and, ultimately, limited: they cover an article with a certain kind of case design, a specific screen placement and size ratio with respect to the body, and input port/button location. Provided that other companies/individuals do not, practically, reuse the same design elements, i.e., an article doesn't have buttons in the same locations, similar stylizations in the same locations, the same kind of package design, etc., the US Patent Office is willing to grant design patents.
Now, the court's view is mostly aligned with the US Patent Office's on what constitutes a valid design, i.e., the design threshold needed to afford protection via a patent. To begin, it is helpful to at least outline some preliminary case law about design patents:
"A design patent protects the nonfunctional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in the patent." (Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993))) The chief limitation on the patentability of designs is that they must be primarily ornamental in character. If the design is dictated by performance of the article, then it is judged to be functional and ineligible for design patent protection. (Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996))
As for case law about design thresholds, I found it by looking through that concerning infringement (a design patent is infringed by the "unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale of the article embodying the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof." (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., 162 F.3d 1113, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1998))):
Similar to the infringement analysis of a utility patent, infringement of a design patent is evaluated in a two-step process. First, the court must construe the claims of the design patent to determine their meaning and scope. (OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) Design patents typically are claimed as shown in drawings. Claim construction by a court is adapted accordingly. Goodyear, 162 F.3d at 1116. The scope of the claim of a patented design “encompasses ‘its visual appearance as a whole,’ and in particular ‘the visual impression it creates.’” (Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 104-05 (Fed. Cir. 1996)))
Second, after construction of the patent’s claims, the court is to compare the construed claims to the accused design. Elmer, 67 F.3d at 1577. Infringement of a design patent occurs if "the designs have the same general visual appearance, such that it is likely that the purchaser [(or the ordinary observer)] would be deceived into confusing the design of the accused article with the patented design." (Goodyear, 162 F.3d at 1118) The patented and accused designs do not have to be identical in order for design patent infringement to be found. (Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1376) In determining infringement of a design patent, the court "is not limited to the ornamental features of a subset of the drawings, but instead must encompass the claimed ornamental features of all figures of a design patent." (Id. at 1379 (emphasis added))
The comparison of the patented and accused designs involves two separate tests, both of which must be satisfied to find infringement: the "ordina
Re:Function based design (Score:5, Informative)
Ever looked at the nokia-line? 3310? 8850? And a zillion other phones just like that?
What, you mean phones that are NOT flat on the front, have LOTS of interface elements (shit, count the frickin' buttons), are NOT flat in the back, and are NOT rectangular - and in the case of the 8850, actually change shape and size depending on what you're doing at the time?
Re:Function based design (Score:2, Informative)
You mean like the LG Prada and the Samsung F700, all release within months of each other back in 2006 compared to the i device?
Unless you think that you can design, manufacture, program, and ship something in less then 2 months... or in the case of the Prada, negative amount of months.