Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down" 506
eldavojohn writes "PJ over at Groklaw has consolidated some of the more interesting juror comments made following the landmark $1 billion settlement. Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material. Most sources are incredulous that all of the information was considered in the process. CNET quotes a juror as saying 'After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.' While the fact that they they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity shows they were at least consistent, Groklaw is reporting on some odd inconsistencies in the aftermath of accounts from jurors. The appeal for something this huge goes without question but the accounts collected at Groklaw make this verdict and verdict process sound hasty, ambiguous and probably the result of one man's (the foreman's) personal opinion of patents."
judge will invalidate (Score:4, Insightful)
I can not see the judge confirming this verdict. It was way too quick
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Funny)
America needs the income.
how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less. This is not a terribly inappropriate sum or one that's going to ruin samsung. Indeed samsung would have been glad to pay a billion for the opportunity to take Nokia's market share away from them. Nokia elected to use patent indemnified Windows, they exchanged patents with apple, and Microsoft paid for patents to apple as well. Samsung got the mark
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought Nokia's market was primarily the not-quite-smart market?
Yes, hence the decision to use a Microsoft OS.
Is everyone OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material.
Doesn't this qualify as a mistrial? [nytimes.com] Was the material in the form of foreman's explanation vetted by the court? Is it admissible as expert testimony? As a guideline perhaps?
Re:Is everyone OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if Samsung won, it probably would've been thrown out anyway as it was all over the news regarding the judge not allowing prior art evidence. This whole trial is a mess.
Re:Is everyone OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Juries can talk about whatever they want in private deliberations, and there's no way you can remove prior knowledge and bias from the jury unless you weed out those people during voir dire. Obviously it was in Apple's interest to have a guy who held patents on the jury, so they kept him in. The other jurors could have well told the foreman they wanted more explicit information or explanations from the judge, but they chose to heed the foreman's advice. Some others had engineering experience. This wasn't your average tech-stupid jury. Was it perhaps a bad decision to not get more explicit instructions, yes.
Is that cause for mistrial? I doubt it. From what we've heard, there was no suggestion that they discussed or researched the case outside of the deliberation room. Could they have screwed up in other ways and cause a mistrial? Well, I guess we'll find out. But I was under the impression that juror comments post-trial cannot be used to change the outcome of the trial.
Re:Is everyone OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're misinformed on that issue. The reason for voir dire is to remove people who aren't likely to be able to set aside their prior opinions or whom have a stake in the outcome. What they did here was a violation of their oath as jurors. They are given the law and the interpretation of the law that they are to use. They then decide whether or not the plaintiff met the bar under the rules that they were given.
Now if the judge gave improper directions to the jury, then that's one thing, but this sounds like a willful violation of their duty. Expect this verdict to be vacated and for the case to probably be settled otherwise go back to court for a proper trial.
The rules are the rules for these things and if the jury does something like this it becomes impossible for the parties to receive a fair hearing.
BTW, this is why I have never talked about what happened during the deliberations for the trial I was on, no matter what you say there's the possibility of giving the idea that the verdict wasn't fair. I didn't agree with one large aspect of the verdict, but I stand by the rest.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it's inappropriate when the patents aren't valid.
Design patent for a 2000+ year old design? Apple should know better - they just tried it to see if they could get away with it.
Stealing ideas from innovators in other fields and then patenting them with the words "on a phone" or "on a tablet" - wtf is that? again, they did it to see if they could get away with it.
I bet there isn't a single patent that Apple has that is valid.
Should just wipe em all away, bunch of idea thiefs. Should just take
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to get anything from Apple; for example, owners of the Galaxy S II - not an Apple device - saw their local search feature get removed by an update due to the lawsuit.
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying from one great artist is stealing. Copying three or more is research. And that's OK.
But lay claim to the commons and you steal from all. It is to say "Not only do I stand on the shoulders of giants - but noone else may."
To claw back from the public domain works owned by the public, or extend temporary rights indefinitely is the same. It is unjust. It is a violation of the social contract. We will not honor the law when it is so unjust. The attempt erodes the rule and force of law, and steals from the commons again the order and comfort general respect for the law provides.
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:4, Informative)
You could try actually reading his post before jumping on his math he said per QUARTER. How long ago did the galaxy come out. I can tell you it was many QUARTERS ago they have probably sold well over 100million phones since they started "infringing" these patents which is why he said "less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less" because he was implying an unknown multiplier based on length of time this has been going on. So yes they have come out way on top. Not to mention they will probably win in appeal.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, genius, so it's spread over 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter ... times how many quarters ? Hmmm? That's 80 to 180 million units in one year. It's a one time payment offset by a continuous stream of product sold. Let's not go crazy making fun of the poster before we've thought this through for even ten seconds.
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I don't know where he got those number, maybe they're worldwide and should be adjusted for just US sales, or adjusted just to the specific devices at issue, or adjusted for ramping sales, etc. But you said nothing to refute the numbers he gave.
$10 per device might be a reasonable for licensing an OS, or a large block of necessary patents. But that's not the case here. The two utility patents were for "pinch to zoom" and "bounce back" windows, neither of which is essential to core functionality. Additionally, it appears that the jury simply skipped over considering prior art, and that perhaps the patents should have been invalidated.
For example, the '915 patent covered "pinch to zoom," for which prior art [gizmodo.com] was clearly demonstrated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's an obvious, "skilled in the art" sort of thing.
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely only sales in the US should be considered. Pinch to zoom is a standard feature of Android, surely Google should be the ones being sued.
Re: (Score:3)
If I write some software and give it away and you use that software in a way that infringes someones patent you get sued, not me.
If everyone was a bit more sane though, everyone would see how strange this is. I effectively create the thing that violates a patent and I don't get in trouble. It's one of the problems with software patents.
That one thing I create can also violate thousa
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the juror wanted to "send a message" abotu infringing patents (yeah, the guy who has a patent and is probably trying to set a precedent about getting a billion dollars for himself sometime in the future).
Groklaw said:
Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
Mind you, if a patent like GSM radio communication sells for 1 cent per device, I can easily see why 'pinch to zoom' should sell for at least $10 per device :)
Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
(reading that as a satirical comment) How do you figure that? Patents necessary to work with a standard protocol, such as GSM, normally fall under FRAND [wikipedia.org], so they must be licensed, and at reasonable cost.
If one assumes Apple's patent on pinch and zoom is valid, they don't have to license it at all - at any cost. They can simply prevent others from using it. It's not needed for the functioning of a smartphone, let alone necessary to implement a standard. And, if Apple can show that they lost sales because that was a highly desirable feature, they have every right to ask for the equivalent of the profits they would have made as damages.
But, I don't think the utility patents were valid. It seemed to me that there was prior art sufficient to make any minor refinements fall under the "obvious" dis-qualifier.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Not even close.
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Informative)
It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That all sounds like stuff the judge should be deciding, not the jury. In the UK the jury is just there to decide, on a balance of probabilities, which of the two arguments is more likely. Then the level of infringement and level of damages is decided by the judge based on the jury's verdict on each individual point. The instructions given by the judge are very clear on the scope of what the jury should consider and what it should decide, and what are the key issues in making the decision. Deviation from th
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
really? The most valuable corporation in the history of the world "needs the income" ?
Judge will definitely invalidate this one. The Jurors have already claimed they didn't deliberate properly.
They just said, screw Samsung, we want to go home.
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Interesting)
Judge will definitely invalidate this one.
Why? This judge (Lucy Koh) has acted consistently with overt bias from the word go. What do expect when the trial venue was basically down the street from Apple HQ. I understand the Cupertino police work for Apple as well.
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Interesting)
In history? I don't know. I imagine the South Sea Company or the East India Company are among the contenders. Companies like Standard Oil would also crush Apple. General Electric, Microsoft, Intel and Cisco both hit, in modern times, higher market caps than Apple.
Here's what I got from a quick Google.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/08/22/a-history-of-ridiculously-big-companies.aspx [fool.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Saying all US judges are honest is stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Corporations being "persons" is a 500 - 600 year old doctrine of law. Back to the Maritime and before to about the time North America was even discovered. Investors stopped financing trade voyages because they would be 100% liable if the ship went down. They many times lost their homes, money and land to pay the families of those lost on the ship. The Corporation simply created a legal "person" to take on that liability and limit the investors losses to the amount they invest.
It was nothing new created by the Supreme Court. Corporations are made of people. Yes they can be killed (aka Dissolved) and individuals within it can be personally liable for their actions.
Re:Saying all US judges are honest is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been following the trial on groklaw and the news. This judge has less then impressed me. She did a lot of things that I question. That being said, I'm not a expert on courts and the law. But, with what I've seen, I question whether she will overturn this jury. I think it should, just on the public comments from the jury, but the whole trial sounded to me like they were railroading samsung.
We'll see how things turn out...
Re:judge will invalidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've gathered, his interests are pretty much the same as Apple's: defending patents that are pretty obvious and have quite a bit of prior art.
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Perhaps deliberate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that actually would make a lot of business sense.
After all, if this drags on long enough, Samsung will be fighting over old technology that's no longer being sold, and then they can just drop the entire thing or settle. Without losing their market share or momentum. Apple's real goal of crushing their competition will have been thwarted, and Samsung just has to pay a fine.
As for prior art, there has been hardly anything that hasn't involved stealing ideas from someone else in the last couple of hundred years. What we need is a more sane approach to it, like do in the fashion industry. Without everyone tacitly agreeing to allow some copying of ideas, the industry itself would simply implode and cease to work properly. Because they do, though, there are rarely legal challenges and everyone prospers (or at least has the ability to try to do so). Innovation requires copying and improving upon existing ideas. Without any ability to do so, people simply go to where they can. ie - China, currently.
Apple is slowly killing itself off in the mad rush to protect everything down to the placement of a screw and the color of a connector. They're so focused upon the minor tiny crap that they are losing sight of the reality of the marketplace. People buy your product because of the total package that you offer. They could care less what some minor effect or component looks like or where it came from. The more money they waste and the more bad press they generate, the closer they come to the mess they created in the mid 90s. They go down while clutching onto their patents and pride while the majority of the consumers have simply moved on to less expensive and less restrictive products.
Except this time, there is no Jobs to rescue them. And Wozniak isn't coming to save anything, either.
Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a possiblity of conflict of interests (and with that, a bias towards the case), how could this person be chosen as juror to begin with?
Good question, and if this article [businessweek.com] is accurate, Samsung really dropped the ball on not getting him excluded:
"Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering "video compression software," a hobby of his."
How could they not see the bias he would have?
Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (Score:5, Informative)
and the rest of the jury just followed along like lemmings. The foreman fancied himself an expert on patents, what with his vast experience of having secured 1 patent
What a disgrace. Unfortunately rule 606(b) [cornell.edu] of the Federal evidence code precludes using the jurors' statements in an appeal. So they can prance and prattle like jackasses, but there's not much to do about it
Did the juror text this info to the reporter with "send from my iPhone" at the bottom?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know this might apply,
(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juryâ(TM)s attention;
It depends on what could be considered "prejudicial" or not. If he had a pre-formed opinion (which seems likely) on patents and used that to basically ignore all prior-art evidence then that is certainly prejudicial.
Re:Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that he fancied himself an expert. More likely he knows just how invalid his patent is and is more interested in propping up the whole broken system.
Seriously, how did it every get through the USPTO? That's rhetorical, I worked at IBM for too long and saw way too many of the patents that my group got.
Could jury know trial would likely go to appeals? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could jury know trial would likely go to appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
There are generally two way of appealing a verdict; attacking the opposing legal team (e.g. withholding and/or misrepresenting evidence), and attacking the court (e.g. failure to follow procedure, clear bias). I'm guessing Samsung's legal team will go mostly for the latter. Not withstanding the rulings from Judge Koh are heavily in Apple's favour, particularly in the case of denying some of their evidence (potential bias), there is a growing sentiment in the press that the jury badly failed in their duties, with the clear failure to sanity check their rulings against their penalties as Exhibit A.
My prediction; successful appeal from Samsung on grounds of a mis-trial then back to District Court for a do-over and, no doubt, subsequent appeals and counter appeals... It's going to be a loooong time before we can stick a fork in this one.
If it walks like a Duck... (Score:3, Interesting)
This was a simple exercise of recognizing a duck and whether there were any before Apple hatched the egg first.
Samsung whined. Jurors were listening for a quack
Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:4, Insightful)
They're now taking things BADLY out of context. For instance, the quote about not needing the jury instructions, was NOT about the whole decision, it just about resolving their original 2 mistakes of including damages for phones they found non-infringing--well duh they didn't need instructions about how to fix that.
And pay careful attention to the quote in the summary: the juror says they debated the prior art, then he says they "skipped that one". Hmm. He does not say they failed to consider prior art. He says the first one was bogging them down with the debate on prior art because they found it hard to believe there was not any. Then he says "they skipped that one", which, in context, probably means they put all questions regarding that patent aside to move on and see if the others were easier. But they did rule on it, which means they came back to it--and given their reports that debate was heated, it seems unlikely that they put it aside for a while, then came back and arbitrarily found for Apple without finishing their consideration of the evidence. It is really not reasonable to read that quote as saying the jury skipped consideration of prior art.
Reading Groklaw's opinions of this trial has become rather like reading FOSS Patent's opinions of the Oracle/Google trial, or Enderle/Didio's opinions of the SCO trials. They've become so emotionally attached to the outcome they wanted, that everything about the trial is twisted to become part of the (imaginary) wrong that Samsung and the world are suffering at the hands of this (allegedly) rogue jury. Seriously, don't you notice that their comments disparaging the jury (who spent 3 weeks listening all day to the details of this stuff, far more than any of us will ever know about it) sound like SCO or Oracle disparaging their respective juries???
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with what you said, except I have to add to the last paragraph that Groklaw is pretty opinionated and biased in most of their coverage, except that people like you are noticing it this time around because Groklaw's bias is not fitting with yours. If you think they're anti-Apple in this case, you think they haven't been extremely biased all along in Microsoft related cases? But since PJ is the darling of Slashdot while MS is the borg, anyone even hinting bias in Groklaw has been called a paid shilll and shot down and modded down to the depths of hell all along. By the way, I don't believe she's paid to do what she does, but the bias is always there, except this time it is more noticeable to the Apple fans on Slashdot, many of who previously jumped on the anti-MS bandwagon that Groklaw ran and called it the best legal unbiased analysis of tech law issues around. Funny how biases and prejudices work.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the biggest difference between this case and SCO is that SCO was clearly in the wrong. They were clearly a puppet company of Microsoft and they were clearly attempting to abuse the patent system. When harsh criticism is obviously due it's hard to call that 'bias.' SCO was both legally and morally in the wrong and no amount of obfuscation could hide that.
With this case, it's pretty unclear as to who was legally in the right and it's definitely unclear as to whether either side had a moral high ground
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:5, Interesting)
I see things differently.
Yes, everybody has opinions. You have them. PJ has them. I have them. If you agreed to 'everything' on Groklaw, you might actually share many of my opinions, although perhaps not all (not everything I care about is discussed on Groklaw).
The 'consensus' on Groklaw seems to be that claiming (software) patents are a 'bad' thing. I happen to agree.
I did read Groklaw on this case the last few days, and did find interesting facts in there. As to whether everything reported is 'true', that is hard to verify from here; I did for instance not hear any of the jurors myself, so cannot testify as to how any statements could or should be explained. But discussing HOW they could be interpreted seems legitimate enough.
The results so far are, from an "anti software patents view", not reassuring. Can everything work out right in the end? Who knows. Not upholding the iPad 'trade dress' may be a light in the dark. This might in the end lead to the abolishment of software patents. But who knows, SCOTUS has neglected to rule on things which in my opinion are 'bad laws', and software patents in the States may live another 10-20 years.
Am I disappointed (in the jury)? Yes.
Could something have been wrong with the way the jury came to a conclusion? Yes.
May it be a vector to research and discuss? Yes. I see NOTHING wrong in discussing this.
I see nothing wrong with the discussions on Groklaw on this point. I realize many people here on Slashdot are Apple fans, and as such anything Apple may do will recieve positive feedback from a large crowd.
Do I think those people are wrong? Yes, I do.
Do I believe these people are astroturfing/are shills? No, the way I see it, many people convinced of 'the Apple way' are so from conviction. From the active way you participate in this discussion (many times with +3 or +5 insightful), I guess you (and others) may be very disappointed with the fact that Groklaw mostly took a position opposite to yours.
The fact that you agreed previously with Groklaw may make this more emotional with you, I guess 'wrong' opinions by people or groups respected by you comes harder. I do, however, see a trend at Groklaw, which only could lead to it taking the stand that it took (and takes): software patents are bad, anyone using them to stifle innovation or competition should be frowned upon, and any legal arguments against this should be investigated.
I write this post, trying to avoid letting this be seen as an 'ad hominem' attack on you.
I do, however, believe that your attack here on Groklaw is misplaced. If you see any factual errors, please state them on Groklaw, as far as I know dissenting opinions are given enough room.
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw might be emotionally committed sometimes, but they are still emphasising facts, bring fact-corrections when they are wrong, and digs into actual legal document like no other journalists does, as long as they keep doing that they will continue to be a source of superior journalism on tech court cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...but they are still emphasising facts...
Not lately. Lately it's been misquotes, misrepresentations, and opinions. That's my problem with it. In this case, they've let their emotional involvement overwhelm good sense.
I'd been following them for over 9 years and finally gave up and unsubscribed yesterday, not because I care so much about whether or not they agree with me on any particular case, but because it hurt too much to see quality thrown out the window like that. I know it sounds maudlin, but it really did hurt to see PJ now doing, without
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it sounds maudlin, but it really did hurt to see PJ now doing, without realizing it, what Darl/Enderle/Didio/Florian did so many times in the past--I just couldn't stand to continue.
Nah, it just sounds looney because what you say is happening is not happening.
People misunderstand Groklaw (Score:3, Interesting)
Groklaw is not, and has never been, a neutral, unbiassed source of information.
What PJ did in the SCO case, and for which she deserves a huge pile of karma, is to present her pro-Linux, pro-GPL argument in an extremely professional, reasoned way, with copious references and links to sources, and with clear, plain English explanations of the law and legal procedures involved. Essentially, she was presenting the case for the defence the way it should be presented if the court system lived up to its own ideal
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, putting those parts aside, it does seem that a juror stated they set the damages in order to "send a message" and punish Samsung, something which is explicitly forbidden by the jury instructions. I'm not sure how that could possibly be quoted out of context.
Quite easily: having found infringement, and having found that it was willful, the law (and jury instructions) were that damages should be the entire profit derived from the infringing devices. Samsung at various times had produce about 10 (I forget exactly, it was either 9 or 12) different analyses of their profit margins, including one, different from all others, for the admitted (under cross-examination) sole purpose of presentation to this jury. So they had in their hands estimates of Samsung's profit margins ranging from about 10% to about 35%, and they were required to find damages in the amount of the profits.
They rejected the highest estimate (which came from Apple, not Samsung), and they rejected the lowest, and from that point it was basically a SWAG as to what the profits actually were--because of Samsung's obvious attempts to obfuscate. Given that, they did want to make sure that the number they picked was high enough to cause Samsung some actual pain.
So there's your context that was left out. Also left out was the rest of that juror's sentence: "We felt like we were 100 percent fair..."
Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Twisted? Groklaw commented that the jury had some inconsistencies in their judgement, like awarded damages for devices that did not infringe on the patents, also the jury did not calculated the sum right. Also Groklaw commented that the juror make a statement that they wanted to punish Samsung, contrary to the jury instructions.
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
So I do not know what Groklaw "twisted". And of course you get +4 "insightful" or whatever.
Taking a step back... (Score:3, Interesting)
The trick (of course) would be for Samsung to pull off the marketing campaign without being found in contempt of court or getting their products pulled from the shelves...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
a court has just effectively ruled that Samsung's products are equivalent to Apple's.
No, it's ruled that Samsung's products are illegal copies of Apple products. And if you read Samsung's own testimony, Samsung admits that they're shitty copies.
Jurors as ex parte expert witnesses (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the judicial system compensate for a jury foreman aggressively promoting himself as a de facto expert witness?
Re:Jurors as ex parte expert witnesses (Score:4, Informative)
Samsung's lawyers failed to do their job when he was selected as a juror.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung's lawyers failed to do their job when he was selected as a juror.
Perhaps not. The real problem is where the trial was being held. I mean really, this would be about the same as getting a jury pool for a murder, from the people in the same neighborhood they lived. Or heck a jury for kiddie diddler, from the same neighborhood. It was a poor choice of venue, which makes me question why there.
Somebody said it very well: (Score:5, Insightful)
"When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious.' "
- Dan Frakes [twitter.com]
Re:Somebody said it very well: (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyrkett/4368260369/ [flickr.com]
2002
Re: (Score:3)
but it has buttons.
skipping to just having a home button is pretty obvious too - totally obvious if one wants to be cheap and not include a trackpoint. skipping a jog dial is obvious too if you want to save money/space.
but that type of design wasn't entirely new either. too bad f700 was excluded and they didn't want to bog down with evidence.
Prior art bogging us down? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like the USPO.
American Justice System, Dear Lord (Score:3)
Never letting the truth or relivant informaiton get in the way of a good show trial. The only reason we know this much is because google. samsung, motorola, etc.. all intrested android parties have the money and influence in society to matter. Imagine being a random joe.
If I didn't have faith in the judicial system before, I don't now.
Something fishy with the foreman (Score:4, Informative)
"[Hogan] the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict"
"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions. "
"Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. "
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...But we took our time. We didn't rush.
Re: (Score:3)
That quote needs to be considered in context. They were sent back to resolve some inconsistencies with their verdict (damages awarded for devices found non-infringing), and they asked for the judge to send them some instructions. But between the time they asked and the time the judge had compiled the instructions they evidently had worked their way through what was giving them trouble so they didn't need the instructions anymore.
While there are many other points that raise serious questions with the verdi
seems mistrial to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
after reading this, it's clear to me that the trial should be repeated.. I already wondered why prior art which was shown by samsung was put aside..
Enough with the "rounded corners" crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
The patents that were upheld had nothing to do with rectangles with rounded corners but rather to do with interface design patents. Other Android OEMs have been able to avoid the issues that Samsung had by simply not slavishly copying Apple's implementation patents.
Prior art be damned if Samsung ignores the prior art themselves and instead blindly copies Apple's implementation.
Re:phew (Score:5, Informative)
>Since the site is fairly anti-apple,
PJ was pretty much rabidly pro-Apple in her assessment of Apple vs. Psystar. So much so you got called a troll if you didn't agree.
So i'd say that your assessment of Groklaw is wrong.
--
BMO
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ was pretty much rabidly pro-Apple in her assessment of Apple vs. Psystar. So much so you got called a troll if you didn't agree.
That was pretty much a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": If you go back and read the postings PJ was convinced that Psystar were being bankrolled by the same anti-GPL forces behind SCO (maybe) and that if Psystar's attempts to use anti-trust and "first sale" to overturn Apple's EULA succeeded, they'd be used as precedent to attack the GPL (questioning that logic would get you accused of being a paid Microsoft shill).
Groklaw is on the side of the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Groklaw consistantly sides with the law, and with common sense. I go to groklaw.net to cut through all of the bias and sensationalism of the mainstream press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-s-1-billion-verdict-may-lead-to-samsung-sales-ban.html
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19377261
Now that's bias!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that is true in any way. Groklaw has simply followed the law and the merits without regard to the parties. That her analysis ends up supporting Samsung's case doesn't mean she's "pro-Samsung."
One need only look at how she's covered Oracle cases to see that - Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle's the good guy; Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's the bad guy.
Re:phew (Score:4, Insightful)
She bats for freedom an innovation. As odd as it may sound, it's true. Right after the Oracle Google verdict, there was a case between Oracle and a patent troll, where she supported the stand Oracle took, and remarked on the fact that it depends on the case who the bad guy is. She's consistent with her views and her stance in this case is perfectly consistent with the stands she's taken for many years, if you had bothered to go back a bit. Very different from FOSSPatents who picks a side, and when inconvenient news hits, he just ignores it.
Re: (Score:3)
When software patents are tossed, everybody wins ... except maybe some lawyers, but I can live with that.
Re: (Score:3)
When software patents are tossed, everybody wins ... except maybe some lawyers, but they should be force-fed to the sharks anyway.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, I suspect when he said they skipped it (the previous sentences indicate they had a very heavy, although civil, debate about it going on), they most likely circled back to it later once tempers had cooled. This is perfectly acceptable. I've been a jury foreman before and we had similar instructions from the judge. If you needed to skip something while gathering more information, or just to review other evidence while deciding on a previous question, then do so. You may not be able to come to a decision on every question in the order they are given to the jury. If you can't resolve an answer, then skip it and come back to it later.
Samsung spent hours trying to present prior art evidence. They actually spent a relatively large portion of their case on it. Implying that the jury somehow 'skipped' it because the outcome isn't what you may have been hoping for it reaching a bit. Every jury gets very explicit instructions, and any time there is a deadlock, you can stop at any time and refer questions to the judge on how to proceed.
Re:phew (Score:4, Informative)
This enforces the above. That they couldn't decide this one 'going down the list' and circled back later.
http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html [cnet.com]
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they're hard to find. There's a piece here and there, but no really good source that's been consistent. Maybe this trial was just too polarizing.
So you got nothing, except an excuse to smear groklaw. You smell quite shilly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which I have followed and loved for years
but I refuse to read him, because I know how badly he misrepresents things, how completely unable he is to objectively evaluate. (And what a liar he has been in the past--see opposition to Oracle's purchase of MySQL and his letter to EU commission.) So to the extent that he was right, I would consider that an accident of his prejudice aligning with reality, for once.
Someone who has been "following Groklaw for years" doesn't make this mistake. Either that or you are
Re: (Score:3)
Oh nevermind. Disregard the above. I thought you were talking about PJ
That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.
And I still think you're trying to smear Groklaw unjustly.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.
FOSS Patents is most certainly not a contributor to Groklaw. It is a completely different site, with a different viewpoint, nearly always the opposite of Groklaw (so far, it's much newer). And I was contrasting it to Groklaw.
I went back and checked, and my post was perfectly clear. This misunderstanding is 100% on you. Either you skimmed it and skipped entire phrases, or you have extremely poor reading skills.
Re: (Score:3)
Juries, however, are supposed to make decisions according to the jury instructions they were given. If it's clear that they did not even read the instructions, and failed to apply a reasonable process in evaluating each case fairly and individually, then the judge is justified in filing for a mistrial.
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
>What is this world coming to when we want to "invalidate" the findings of a jury? What is the purpose of law and trials and jury if we're just going to "overturn" any ruling that is unpopular?
When the jury boasts that it reached it's verdict without considering all of that pesky boring evidence, what indeed is the purpose of jury trials?
Re:phew (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:phew (Score:5, Insightful)
I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..
"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 [groklaw.net]
Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.
Re:Ignored prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
Appeal approved!
Of course, if they had actually ignored the prior art. Forget the spin in the post, and actually read the quote, carefully this time, and explain exactly how you conclude that they did not consider prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't ignore prior art, they just had intense disagreements on what constituted prior art.
Re:Many of the Jurors seem to be like US (Score:5, Interesting)
So the decision to exclude evidence (of Samsung's phones in development prior to the iPhone's release) based on a technicality did in fact influence the outcome. Who would've guessed.
As I said before the verdict, the whole purpose of having deadlines in a court case is so that the trial proceeds in a timely manner. Why? So the delays in the trial do not negate the value of any potential outcome. i.e. the cost of achieving justice does not exceed the value of justice. Here we clearly had the opposite case, where the value of justice (billions of dollars either way) obviously would far, far outweigh the cost of a trial delay. The judge erred in disallowing that evidence due to a missed deadline, and I suspect we're going to have to sit through and pay for yet another trial to correct that error.
Re: (Score:3)
That was samsungs mistake. They introduced it too late into the discovery process. The discovery phase isn't something you can load anything you want at any time. If you show off something near the end that would require investigation, for instance forensic evidence, and you do it near the end of discovery, what time will be available to do any sort of follow up by the other side?
Samsung fucked up. Not just with the F700 evidence either.
Re:Many of the Jurors seem to be like US (Score:4, Interesting)
"(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee)."
But bear in mind Samsung can only have so many removed, and this trial was a few miles from Apple's buildings. In that context it's next to impossible to remove every juror and find objective replacements who have no bias towards Apple when the area is so dependent on it for it's income and wealth.
This is the underlying problem. Such an important trial shouldn't ever be allowed to be held so close to one party's offices under any circumstances. It doesn't happen in criminal trials - where there is a danger a member of a community would be prejudged by everyone in that community if the trial is held in that community, hence why they move the trial elsewhere, and it shouldn't happen in civil trials either when the stakes are so high.
You know personally, the problem I have with all this is not so much Samsung being found guilty of infringement which has been the focus of every discussion surrounding this case, the problem I have is that all Samsung's claims were thrown out - what happened to them? where is the commentary on them? If Samsung was found guilty of infringing Apple's rectangulary phone patent which is merely opinion depending on how close you believe a phone can be to such a patent, then how could Apple not be found guilty of infringing Samsung's wireless patents in Samsung's counter-claim, a fact which is provable and not open to mere opinion like the design patents are.
It's that that is the most damning evidence for me that this trial was fundamentally flawed, if Samsung infringed fine, but it's just nonsensical to say Samsung infringed, but somehow Apple didn't, as Apple's works are simply far more blatantly infringing than Samsungs are- Apple kit used tech Samsung has patents on, and contested in this trial, there's simply no question about that, yet those claims apparently vanished into the ether and Apple got everything they wanted. I fully except this may have just been a pro-patent jury who were always going to back patent enforcement and bad luck to Samsung, but then why did they not back Samsung's patents too? The fact they only backed Apple's does pretty much confirm this was not merely a pro-patent jury, but a pro-Apple jury.