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."
Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law...
Hahaha!
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the patent office needs to be smacked down a bit, too. This entire class of patents is ridiculous. You shouldn't able to patent a shape unless that shape advances science and the useful arts. Create a 4th dimensional Hypercube? Fine, that deserves a patent. Create a rectangle made of glass an, metal and plastic? Hell no!
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see her doing that. She seems to be explaining the boundaries of the case that she and the lawyers have "agreed" to, and what the jury needs to decide on. I didn't notice her telling them how to think.
The fact is the case is so broad and there are so many nits to pick, I'd be surprised if the jury could do anything rational with it.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?
BIAS!!!
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Design patents serve a somewhat useful purpose, although I think things like trademark and trade dress serve the purpose better. Just like utility patents, the problem isn't necessarily that they exist, but that USPTO is handing them out like candy. A deliberately minimalistic design with no distinguishing features other than its minimalism shouldn't qualify for a design patent, just as an extremely obvious patent that is just performing an existing operation on a new class of device shouldn't qualify for a utility patent.
Function based design (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Those appearance patents are only meant to prevent another companies product being sold in the same guise as the patent holder's product. The point of protection being if people were buying the Samsung product in the mistaken belief it was an iPhone. That should be the only thing viewed by the judge. If people are buying the Samsung product based upon preferring the software Android, then that should be the end of it, they are not confusing the offerings, this is clearly a gross abuse of the intent of design patents.
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Insightful)
The clear issue that stands out there, is that apple's design is neither new, nor original, and therefor not applicable for patent protection.
As others have pointed out, the combination of "rectangular, thin, with rounded corners and a small bezel border" is not new, and existed in aesthetic designs of personal devices prior to apple's adoption of the aesthetic feature set.
Apple is more claiming that it has taken the old and made it its own, which is now an apple signature appearance-- sure, they can do that, but that falls under trade dress and trade mark, not patent. Similarly to marvel owning red and blue packaging with a spiderweb motif for spiderman products. Making a generic product called "arachnaboy" and packaging it in red and blue blister packs with spiderweb motifs is a trade dress violation. Not a patent violation.
Apple should not have been granted this patent, due to prior art for other personal electronic devices. Claiming "but never a phone or tablet computer!" Does not magically make the aesthetic design novel, nor new.
I hope apple gets their precious little patent used as toilet paper, because in its current form it is completely without value.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, even in a world where corporations are generally assholes, Apple managed to outdo the other players in the industry in sheer assholery. That's the only thing they deserve a patent for.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:5, Insightful)
It could very easily exist in the form of a digital picture frame, which would then look very much like an idevice, and be a digital device.
Claiming "but not in a digital device!" Is like claiming "On the internet!" Or "On a computer!" In a patent for something done commonly for years, as if it were not obvious.
While comonly granted, such protections should not have been enacted.
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Function based design (Score:4, Insightful)
You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
Yet before Apple, every smartphone and tablet had substantial bezels encroaching the screen to "protect" the screen if you put it face down, plus give you a space to grab onto. Apple made significant design impact that changed the market radically.
You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
Actually, Apple has spent far more to achieve the minimalist design. This is common as minimalist designs (from products to architecture) usually require far more expensive manufacturing processes to achieve more precise tolerances since any minor manufacturing mistake is much harder to hide. Also, sacrifices must be made to assembly parts, often requiring all new parts be created to meet the form-factor constraints. Not to mention labor costs in design are much higher.
You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
Is Apple really challenging a flat back? Didn't think so.
You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular
There have been many different ratios of screensize and device. Apple's particular ratios were not common in mobile devices pre-iPhone.
Now, combine everything together so that the design patents are seen as a whole, and yes, Apple made a fairly innovative product that has dramatically changed the smartphone market (including triggering the downfall of RIM and Palm). Pretending that what Apple did is somehow uninovative because other products had this or that feature before is ignoring reality.
And here's the big kicker. So what if Samsung had internal prototypes and designs that look similar to the iPhone before the iPhone launched? Apple got to market first, and used the Design Patent system as it is intended to protect their design from knock-offs and wannabees. Sucks to be Samsung, but thats how this is meant to work.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:4, Insightful)
Bias towards what? Common sense?