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:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:5, Interesting)
I shudder to think what, say, the musical instrument market would look like today if the designs of cellos, violins, classical guitars, grand pianos, and countless other instruments with roughly equivalent shapes were similarly protected.
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not optimistic about this case.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue that apple's design patent is invalid.
Here is why, and it has nothing to do with opinion of apple:
A design patent can only be legally issued for "unique, new, and novel" shapes and design motifs.
Apple's idevice designs are none of those. They basically looked at a cheap plastic picture frame, and copied it.
Many consumer products come in this form factor, and have for a very long time. Here are some examples:
Chinese dry erase board, tablet size [oempromo.com]
Wooden round cornered picture frames [cronescust...orking.com]
aluminum picture frame, chinese [made-in-china.com]
For reference, here is what the iPad looks like.
complimentary iPad image [webmasterstuff.com]
The color of the inactive display (black) is not a design feature. It is a feature of how the technology works.
I have seen plastic picture frames that are flat out strikingly like the iPad in aesthetic design in art stores since the late 80s, when plastic really became popular as a choice. If you are showcasing an image, using a picture frame as an aesthetic inspiration is a no-brainer.
Apple should not have been granted this patent.
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:2, Interesting)
It sounds like your argument is because this judge ruled fairly against Samsung the first time, she is going to come in the 2nd time just assuming they are guilty of whatever
See the emphasis above?
" It sounds like
What I said, and I believed I have stated it clearly, more than once, was that I am concerned about the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, and her ability to be fair
I never said, and never meant, just because that judge Koh ruled against Samsung in a previous case, she must be "BIASED"
No, what I meant, to put it in one simple sentence, is this-
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
It has nothing to do with any "implication" of whether or not Judge Lucy Koh is "BIAS" or not
It has everything to do with the perception of fairness
Re:Judge Lucy Koh (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, Sammy is fucked. Their internal communications basically said, "copy the iPhone. Now. Before we become irrelevant.". That's fucking damning.
If you know Koreans, you would know that one special Korean characteristic is that they are one of the most stubborn race in this world
If you ever talk to any ship crew or flight crew that had Korean captains, you would understand why ship crews / flight crews all over the world are very scared of Korean captains - even when there is a huge storm brewing in front of the vessel/plane, the Korean captain would still give the "go straight ahead" order
Even after Google warned them of their products look too much like that from Apple, Samsung still went ahead and did what they did
Re:Oracle vs Google (Score:4, Interesting)
It came out a few days ago when a lot of the discovery material was unsealed that something like 25% of the returns to Best Buy for the Samsung products Apple is citing in this case as infringing were because the customer incorrectly thought they were purchasing an Apple product and returned it once they realized it wasn't.
As you said, it's something that should be considered, and it sounds like it will be, since they have numbers on it.