Misunderstanding of Prior Art May Have Led to Apple-Samsung Verdict 503
One of the interesting tidbits that came out of last week's billion-dollar verdict in Apple v. Samsung was that the jury's foreman, a patent holder himself, was instrumental in leading the other members through the various complicated infringement claims. Now, Groklaw analyzes an interview the man gave with Bloomberg News (video), in which his statements reveal a basic misunderstanding of what qualifies as prior art. Quoting Groklaw:
"In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it: 'The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.' That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor. It doesn't have to run at all. It can be words on a piece of paper. (If you don't believe little old me, here's a lawyer noticing the video too now.) ... The foreman, in answering criticisms, says that the jury paid close attention to the jury instructions. But looking at this one, did they? I'm sure they meant to, and I'm also sure they did their best according to what they understood. But this was an error, and it's one I don't think the judge can ignore, if anyone brings it to her attention."
Hey now, (Score:5, Insightful)
Being judged by an idiot who knows nothing about the law is a cornerstone of our civilization.
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Funny)
O.J. agrees, and says "thank you".
If the software don't fit, you must convict.
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Funny)
If the corners are round, you must impound.
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the police pretty much did their best job possible to fuck up their case against him. Johnny Cochran was basically handed the win.
Re:Hey now, (Score:4, Informative)
That and the jury was 12 idiots selected because they never read the news and weren't that familiar with the events. When the prosecution was able to show all their DNA evidence, they presented the evidence as a series of numbers and odds. The jurors said in exit interviews they had no idea what they were listening to, and thusly ignored all the DNA evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically you are saying that anyone that doesn't watch tabloid news is an idiot? Because really, that's what you are implying, which is kind of funny when you think about it. There are a lot of people that don't keep up with Hollywood/tabloid news that are perfectly reasonable, sane, intelligent individuals.
What's really funny is when people are elitist about it.
"Anyone that doesn't know about X is an idiot!"
"Really? How would they have known it?"
"By staying glued to their TV set,that's how."
"I see."
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Finding someone who wasn't particularly familiar with him, or biased by existing coverage at that point meant finding absolute idiots or social pariahs who avoided all news outlets.
Hello!
I was vaguely aware of the Bronco chase & that OJ was a part of that, but knew little else. (1) I don't care about stupid sports. (2) At the time I was more-interested in a new channel called Sci-Fi. (3) And passing my college exams.
That does not make me an idiot. On the contrary I think it makes me highly intelligent because I don't pay attention to tabloid shit like the OJ Scandl, or the Cardassians, or the recent Twlight romnce cheating thingies. It's all mindless pap.
Re:Hey now, (Score:4, Funny)
Hardly. I know the word "Cardashians". I haven't the foggiest clue who they are or why TV/radio onair talent keeps talking about them. As for the OJ Trial I know there a joke about a poorly-fitting bra on Seinfeld that referenced OJ, but that's about it.
Re:Hey now, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll grant you that although the OJ Simpson saga should have been just tabloid fodder, because of his celebrity it was widely covered by legit media.
But story of the year? Story of the decade? Are you insane?
Just that year, we had the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact with Jupiter. Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Kremlin accords. Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. Nixon died. The Yugoslav wars were in full swing, THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE OCCURRED. Apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa.
So seriously, this was the biggest news of the 1990s? The same decade that had the gulf war, Bill Clinton elected twice, and then impeached, the rise of the world wide web, (speaking of which, Netscape was 1994 also), the Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine massacre, Branch Davidian Compound, Rodney King Beating and subsequent LA riots...
Yes, the media oversold the importance of the OJ Simpson story. Please don't perpetuate that today.
What is DNA anyways? (Score:3)
...probably stands for Did Not Attack!
(credit to Dana Carvey)
It's worse than that. (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to me he's just an opportunistic SOB hoping to make some money from some company who would rather pay than fight. Of course he wants to defend patents against invalidation due to obviousness or prior art. His would be worthless if that were easy to do.
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't read the summary of the patent, the summary is essentially meaningless. If you want to know what ACTUALLY is covered under a patent, you MUST read the claims. As a shortcut, you can read claim 1 (until you learn the difference between independent and dependent claims).
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely and completely incorrect. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand them, without unduly importing details from the specification into the claims. The claims can encompass variations not disclosed in the spec, and the claims can be rejected with prior art that doesn't match what's disclosed in the spec.
In fact, the courts take an even narrower view of the claims than the PTO does, because the courts construe each claim term specifically according to the spec, as part of what's called a Markman hearing.
As Judge Rich of the CAFC once said, the name of the game is the claim.
Not the spec, not the drawings, not the abstract or title. The claims.
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:5, Funny)
No no, you cannot put it into the same processor. That changes everything right there.
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:4, Insightful)
No no, you cannot put it into the same processor. That changes everything right there.
Heh. I have this image of millions of geeks hard at work writing patent applications for various Apple features, with the additional claim "on an ARM processor".
Runaway juror (Score:5, Insightful)
You are 100% correct. This guy is undoubtedly seeing dollar signs on his own patent, and if the jury had invalidated Apple's patents, I honestly believe that he thinks it would hurt his ability to monetize his own patent. It's very telling to me that he had an "aha" moment not about what the decision should be, but how to "explain" to other jurors why they should side with Apple. It seems to me that he had already made up his mind which way this trial must go, and he was just trying to figure out a way to convince the other jurors to go along with him.
The thing I'm wondering, though, is does that matter? I mean, once a jury has rendered a verdict, can you actually have it overturned because it's later found out that a juror has ulterior motives? Isn't that why the lawyers have an opportunity to strike jurors before the trial starts? And if so, why the hell didn't Samsung's lawyers ask the jury pool if anyone had any patents? It just seems to me that if I were Samsung, I'd want a jury that doesn't have any patent holders on it. Not that there's anything wrong with patent holders, but I would fear that any patent holder on the jury would be financially motivated to push for a system much more in favor of patents and would rule with Apple on the case to protect their own interests, which I'm convinced is what actually happened in this case.
IANAL though, so I can't answer these questions. Maybe someone else here who is a laywer can weigh in.
That is a good question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Runaway juror (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Runaway juror (Score:4, Insightful)
Yikes. That's going a bit far.
Disallowing patent holders from the jury would be just as unfair as requiring all jurors to hold a patent. (Thought in the latter case it'd be a lot harder to find 12 qualified, available people!)
Yes, owning patents will tend to make you favor patent-prosecuting plaintiffs, but the reverse is also true. What they should do is ensure that a patent holder is not unduly biased or opportunistic in favor of patents (or a non-patent-holder is not unduly hateful of patents), as seems to be the case here, not keep patent holders off of patent cases entirely.
Re:Runaway juror (Score:5, Informative)
They had already used up all their jury strikes on people with more patents (one had 120!), as well as excluding owners of Samsung/Apple products, people who had read the Steve Jobs book, anyone who had worked for Apple, Samsung, or Google, people who worked for companies which did work for A/S/G, and anyone who developed for the iOS/Android ecosystems. I mean this was in San Jose... that doesn't leave you much left to choose from!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the guy seems to have abandoned the patent, at least that what the patent search I did showed. Even if he did basically patent existing technology from the 70s, and TiVo, and a few other existing things, he didn't have any way to make money on such an obviously bad patent. Waste of time and money, unless he just wanted a wall decoration.
But it sounds like he's definitely of the opinion that prior art doesn't really matter much. Or he's got a complete misunderstanding of how prior art should be app
Re:Runaway juror (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Runaway juror (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's true that assuming to know another's motivation is bad, the foreman relying on his personal experience is also bad, since you're supposed to use the facts presented in the case, along with the jury instructions, as the sole means by which to determine a verdict.
I'm a software engineer who believes that software is not patentable. Are you saying that if I was on the jury, it would be appropriate for me to advise the other jurors that all of the software-based claims are invalid? There would be a similar furor about that.
All of the jurors can see things differently, but they must all use the same set of facts, and those facts must have been presented as evidence...you can't bring extraneous evidence in as a juror.
Re: (Score:3)
"as the sole means by which to determine a verdict"
Actually this is somewhat incorrect. By definition we bring our life experience and points of view with us. And really the jury can use any criteria at all if it wants to.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a bigger problem with that person being the jury foreman than the prior art problem.
It certainly has the possibility of impropriety. Wouldn't you think a patent holder would resist the idea of saying that a certain patent was unfairly given? Especially if his own patent was rather shaky. You wouldn't want to throw doubt on your own patent by saying it's possible that the patent office screws up.
Re:It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right.
This demonstrates pretty clearly that Hogan either doesn't understand prior art, or is very clever about misleading the PTO about prior art.
One basic fundamental principal of all Patents (well, all utility patents ... I have no idea what they're smoking over on the Design Patent side of things, but I'd like to try some, given a long weekend) is that of not being "obvious to one skilled in the art". The PTO's never been very good with this anyway, since every applicant tries to convince them they've invented something profound, when it's usually pretty ordinary. And obvious. Of course, one fundamental failing of the PTO, particularly at the dawn of software patenting, was the complete lack of examiners "skilled in the art" well enough to even correctly judge this level of obviousness.
One major point of failure is "X, but on Y". So personal computers have had removable storage at least since the PET 2001 by buddy had in 1977. Probably a bit before, but I can personally verify that one, having loaded and even written the cassette tapes myself. Given that pretty much every advanced set top box designed is a somewhat specialized personal computer (having designed personal computers for 11.5 years and STBs for 6, you can trust me on this), there's absolutely nothing not obvious to one skilled in the art about adding any kind of removable storage to an STB. In fact, I had one in the late 1990s that did USB, if not SD cards (in fairness, the original SD Card wasn't released until 2000, and no one would really want to use flash memory for video back then anyway, it was simply too small). Same goes for smartphones, tablets, etc.
Which means the invention might still be patentable, but it has to be implemented in a really unique way -- you need a real invention, not just copying the PC schematic over to a slightly different personal computer design and calling that an invention. But the patent files are full of things everyone did for years, with "on a smartphone", "on the internet", "on a tablet", whatever, pretty much just tacked on. And most applications are terrible about including the obvious prior art everyone knows about, even though that's a filing requirement. Even if it's not patented. I've written a few patents, analyzed dozens for various purposes (prior art, actual infringement, etc)... it's a heinous mess, overall.
And largely not because of clowns like Hogan, but because large companies learned to work the system, years back. They've mastered the art of getting nothing through the system, then claiming it covers everything. And they know, it's regular rubes will be judging the patents in court, much of the time. Look at Apple's '915 patent, which some people think covers all of multi-touch, pinch to zoom, and probably anything anyone's ever done with a touchscreen. But in the legal brew-ha-ha with Elan, the ITC determined that Apple's stuff was very, very specific to the way they did it, wasn't infringing on Elan, and neither were Elan's patents infringing on Apple... though Apple settled for paying them $5 million (pocket change) and a cross-licensing agreement. Given the VAST amount of prior art on touch (going back to the 60s) and multi-touch (early 80s), it's impossible to believe Apple really has anything fundamental here (see http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html [billbuxton.com]). But Apple knows that's rarely brought up in these kinds of cases... and it looks like Hogan did what he could to mislead the regular rubes, perhaps far worse than if know-nothing-specifics were on the case.
Actually if the people know nothing it often works (Score:4, Insightful)
The jury is supposed to consider just the facts put before them, and just in the context they are instructed to. They aren't supposed to be experts, and are not supposed to use outside information. The judge instructs them on what the law is and how to apply it, and decides on what facts are entered in to evidence. The jury then is supposed to make its decision on that alone.
The reason is if they don't, well shit like this can happen. Some juror thinks they know what is the law better than the court, and they go and cause problems.
Re:Hey now, (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a question for that idiot:
If using a different processor disqualifies it from being prior art, wouldn't the same logic mean Samsung's technology didn't infringe Apple's patent?
Can you imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
That if you were on this jury, that foreman would be valuable ewed as the expert by easily impressed everyman and you'd be arguing how silly his position is while the other jurors shot you down because "he has expertise, where's your patent?" ugh. I am glad for my mental health I was nowhere near that jury room.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd show him my patents, then. And point out that I also did patent defense (while at Commodore), so I not only know how to write one (I've written several, actually, both mine and for others), I know how to critically examine one against prior art. And I know the real meaning of "obvious to one skilled in the art", not the one the patent examiners often use, just to avoid work.
Of course, Apple would have DQed me in jury selection.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you assert that he did not see the evidence? Perhaps the verdict is idiotic therefore he disagrees with it rather than the other way around that you suggest.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.
That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact. [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
Well lets see, I've been in the industry for three decades and have read absolutely anything and everything about the case, and I hold or was responsible for guiding the process for hundreds of patents. I think the verdict is ridiculous. In fact, I think we wasted an awful lot of judicial time even hearing it. Then get back to actually inventing things that are clearly patented. Gestures and finger flicks aren't inventions.
While I might be egotistical, I'm also far better qualified than the bunch of neo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't read the news on the intarwebs much do you?
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
Actually the jury was shown LESS than is available from "opinion sites" like little old slashdot. It's up to the judge to decide what's admissible (and for what reason) when it comes to the jury. When it comes to "opinion sites", anything goes. What sounds more thorough to you?
Firstly, a great deal of the stuff on opinion sites is not fact, it is opinion, so of course that's not admissible, as it shouldn't be. Secondly, It doesn't matter what is "more thorough" in your opinion. Lastly, the verdict is based on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and should NOT BE based on some allegedly more thorough evidence on opinion sites, so OP is tainted by inadmissible evidence and is not qualified to reflect on idiocy of verdict.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Er sorry... guess I missed a / on a quote but that wasn't what I thought the preview looked like.
What sounds more thorough to you
Therein lies one of the great challenges of the legal system. In any other discipline you could do your own research, and realize if a lawyer is just bad and didn't find something, you could consider all evidence and reasoned advice on a topic without confining yourself to only that presented based on an artificial timeframe, you could pass the problem to someone more appropriate (should this be patentable at al
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)
we need special juries in cases covering stuff lik (Score:3)
we need special juries in cases covering stuff like tech, prior art, patents, med, doctors.
As a court room is a poor place to learn about deep issues covering tech cases and the pay is way to low.
I think there was a few cases where where only 1 IT person the jury and some went to prison now with that jury had more then 1 IT person on it then maybe that person will not be in lockup right now.
Cases need viewpoints for people in the field and only havering 1 can get you a one sided view
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is having one so-called expert, and 11 laymen in the room. It should either be all experts or all laymen.
Use him for appeal (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung can use his misunderstanding during their appeal.
On the other hand, there's no guarantee that the next jury will be any better than this one.
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:4, Informative)
Jury Misconduct. Plain and Simple.
If the trial judge doesn't reject this verdict outright, it gets immediately appealed, and taken out of her hands.
Further Apple's requested ban pretty much is Dead On Arrival with this kind of stuff floating around.
Usually, on appeal, you don't go back to another Jury.
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:5, Informative)
Jury Misconduct. Plain and Simple.
Agreed. Having served on a jury, this is the kind of thing a foreman is supposed to prevent / report. It turns out that they chose the wrong foreman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for god's sake. It's not misconduct. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid verdict but it's not misconduct. No one took a bribe, or sat drunk in the jury box while the evidence and arguments were presented.
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the jury instructions is misconduct.
Go read Groklaw [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. She was repeatedly biased toward Apple. She allowed Apple to show their prior art to prove Samsung copied, but did not allow Samsung to show other prior art which would have invalidated Apple's design patents showing that everyone copies.
That doesn't seem like doing "pretty good". The whole point of a patent case is whether the patent was valid or not. And prior art is the top way to invalidate a patent.
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:5, Informative)
From page 4 of the document you linked to:
I'd say the foreman telling the jury improperly why prior art should be dismissed would count as #1.
Why all the butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys, this is just getting started. Samsung isn't going to let a 1BN judgement go un-apealed.
Samsung, though. (This case is about Samsung and not Andriod. Don't get your panties in a knot) really did go out of their way to copy apple design, look and feel. Touchwiz, the Samsung created UI addition to Andriod, really is a (bad) attempt at making devices more apple like. (I know. Ive got a galaxy tab and a galaxy S2 - I rooted them both to remove it)
One of Apple's biggest assets is their design, look, feel, etc (Trade dress). Did you expect apple to take it laying down?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why all the butthurt? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well you certainly hit the nail on the head there!
Re: (Score:3)
Dude,
He wasn't offended. He was stunned.
If you're pricing a MacBook you have already decided there are two over-riding specs you want:
1) It has to be absolutely seamlessly integrated into the Apple ecosystem of devices. I don't doubt it's possible to get buy with a Dell, an iPad, and an Android phone as your primary devices but it's a lot less seamless that way. And by the way, I consider a single dialog box or preference a "seam."
2) It has to be supported in a physical retail store so I can show a tech sup
Bad example (Score:3)
...the Apple products have a slight advantage on usability and battery life and construction (Gorilla Glass on their products for example).
Gorilla glass is not exclusive to the iPhone [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bad example (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why all the butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
The utility patents (bouncing stops and "pinch to zoom"), OTOH, had very easily found prior art [ted.com].
Re:Why all the butthurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Apple's biggest assets is their design, look, feel, etc (Trade dress). Did you expect apple to take it laying down?
Eh, Apple is getting screwed either way. Even if they win, they lose. Before this trial, consumers in the US mentally lumped Samsung in with Motorola, Sony, and a half-dozen other also-rans. Now Apple is claiming "Samsung copies our products!", "Consumers can't tell the difference!". The longer this case drags out, the more coverage it gets, and the more consumers are going to believe those claims through repetition.
Apple has rebranded Samsung to be in their league. Normally, you can't buy that kind of advertising at any price. Samsung got a bargain at $1B
Re:Why all the butthurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
...
Possible, but unlikely.
The spin people are more likely to believe is that Samsung's products are by definition rip-offs of Apple, and therefore anybody who pays money for them has been ripped off. And Samsung just doesn't have the marketing chops to beat that spin.
You say that in a world where people gladly pay money for knockoffs. Can't afford an iphone? Get a samsung, looks just like it. Can't afford that designer purse? Get a knock off. Want people to think you are in designer clothes? Buy knock offs.
split. (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh, at this point I try not to follow these case too closely... while I hate software patents and think they need to be abolished, I find the reporting and oversimplification almost as bad...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think his participation on the jury is wrong. What is wrong is how he was able to basically act as an expert witness for Apple without chance for cross examination by Samsung. If he were cross examined, then his understanding of prior art would have been thrown out and the jury would be instructed not to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
I was more thinking of the defense team's right to exclude jury members who they feel would have a bias. As a patent holder it could be argued that he was in favor of patents being upheld. Though the more troubling element is it sounds like he was the one explaining 'what counts' in patent law to the jury (instead of a neutral patent lawyer) so it sounds like he was giving interpretations that were skewed (throu
Re:split. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:split. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it a conflict of interest if a jury member feels that he needed to send a murderer to jail because he didn't want himself or his family or anyone else to be injured by that person?
Absolutely. Because the statement assumes that the suspect is the murderer and makes no attempt to evaluate him based on the evidence.
Did the jurors talk to Bill Buxton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was it implemented on a computer you could hold in your hand? No, simply because the technology was not small enough to fit in your hand. But just because Apple was the first to implement it in your hand, does not mean they were in anyway inventing something novel, unique, and non-obvious that deserves patent protection. Apple made a logical, obvious, iteration to a decades old technology. I don't see how this is possibly a point of contention, and the fact the jurors went the other way on this leads me to believe the headline is 100% correct, or something else fishy is going on.
Re:Did the jurors talk to Bill Buxton? (Score:5, Insightful)
That pinch to zoom wasn't a question in the trial is immaterial; the pinch to zoom patent serves to highlight the fact that Apple holds very obviously questionable patents, which brings into doubt not only their other UI patents but also the entire patent system.
Re:Did the jurors talk to Bill Buxton? (Score:4, Informative)
You must be joking....
Patent 915 is the pinch-to-zoom patent that Samsung was found to have violated.
Interchangeable? (Score:5, Insightful)
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
That just doesn't make any sense. If the fact that the given prior art is not interchangeable disqualifies it to make Apple's patent obvious, then the fact that Samsung's code is just as not interchangeable should disqualify it too from infringing. Or this is bullshit but then that means Apple's patent is obvious. No matter which is true, I don't see how it can go one way for prior art and the other way for Samsung's code.
Can a gesture even be patented? (Score:3, Funny)
* Swallow pill to cure: Every orally delivered medicine, past and future now owes me big time
* Push button to Switch on: Every device in existence will now have to invent a new gesture to switch itself on.
* Click button to Submit: Most websites and applications..
* Pull handle to open: All doors.
This isn't about prior art, it is about what is patentable: The implementation (invention) or the gesture to interact with the implementation.
This Works Both Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't this prior art argument apply to Samsung's device as well? If the iPhone processor isn't the same as Samsung uses, then Apple's software doesn't run that processor and no patent was violated.
Jury misconduct (Score:4, Insightful)
Speed the Plow (Score:3)
Prior art misunderstandings (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course prior art was misunderstood. It usually is, including the misunderstanding that Groklaw is propagating. For the purposes of dismissing a patent, prior art does not just have to be something similar, but must be something that is, in whole or in part, exactly the same as what's claimed in the patent. If the patent claims a specific processor function that the prior art didn't have, it's not prior art!
Software is algorithms, and algorithms are mathematics. That's why they should never be allowed to be patented in the first place, which would have avoided all this Apple v. Samsung trial about bounceback anyway.
The algorithms are not patentable, but their assembly into a system is, just like a screw conveyor is not patentable, but its use in a new material feeder is.
Rule 50 (Score:5, Interesting)
This case is a prime candidate for a successful Rule 50 motion, which states essentially that in a jury trial, if a court finds that a jury would not have sufficient evidentiary basis to rule as it did, the judge may overrule the jury's decision or, alternately, vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial. The judge can't use it to impose his or her own opinion; it has to be a fairly clear-cut case in which the jury acted unreasonably or contrary to law. So, for instance, if a jury finds a criminal defendant not guilty and the judge thinks there was enough evidence to convict, that's too bad. In the Apple-Samsung case, though, there was a clear and articulated misapplication of the prior art standard, which causes the verdict to fail as a matter of law.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't that invalidate jury nullification?
Perhaps you misunderstand the term "nullification". The jury can Nullify laws, but it can't create their own laws and rule via them. Jury Nullification would mean the charges are dropped, not the punishments are needed due to their own reasoning. It's the prosecution's job to find reasons for punishment, and jury nullification would work against that, not create new vectors for punishment.
Jury selection FAIL (Score:4, Interesting)
I was recently called to report for jury duty on a patent litigation trial at a US District Court. The patent involved "computer code" as the judge put it. Weeks before arriving, I filled out a questionnaire which included questions about my occupation, which I stated as Software Engineer.
As we went through jury selection, it quickly became clear that the attorneys wanted to state their case in their own way without anyone on the jury attempting to re-explain or translate for the others. Out of the first 14 jurors interviewed, only 1 person had had ANY experience with "computer code" (30 years ago in the Navy, and he mentioned COBOL). One side or the other threw that guy off the jury. We didn't get past Juror #15 before they had agreed on the jury pool. I was juror #28!
I can't believe that Samsung allowed this guy anywhere near the final jury. Well, unless there were 10 other patent trolls in the pool that they needed to get rid of before him.
misunderstanding of role of a juror? (Score:3)
Maybe I don't understand the role of a juror. Are they allowed to present new evidence, or cover arguments that were not covered in a case? Isn't it the role of the lawyers on each side to provide details like if prior art can be considered or not?
It would be like a juror deciding he was an amateur forensic investigator, and chose to add additional evidence based on his observations. Such possibilities don't inspire confidence in our legal system.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the jurors are not allowed to present new evidence about the case that wasn't brought up in the court room. But they are allowed to judge the case using their personal experiences as a basis. In this case, Hogan juror personally believed prior-art doesn't mean anything, and this is obvious from the fact that he owns a patent for TiVo despite the fact that TiVo was invented half a decade prior. What Hogan did wasn't illegal....
BUT, Hogan should not have been allowed on the jury, as he clearly has a bia
He was talking about a Samsung patent (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually watch the video, you'll see that the patent he is talking about is the "460" patent, is a Samsung patent on a method of transmitting emails from a mobile phone with a camera [theverge.com]. Indeed, the jury did rule that Apple had not proved that Samsung's patent was invalid [groklaw.net]. However, they also ruled that Apple did not violate it, so even if the jury had found Samsung's patent invalid based on prior art, it would not have changed anything.
Re:jury system a poor match for something so compl (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunatly you didn't give any details so there is no question, I hope, that I'm making an actual assessment of your arguements. That said ...
Somewhere right now there is a guy saying the EXACT SAME THING about some joker who kept "arguing his points again and again to get people to agree with him, no matter what it was."
Who knows, he might even be on /. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Que the False Narratives (Score:4, Informative)
Ha, Slashdot is so pro-Apple it's painful. "We skipped that one" turns into "we skipped that one and came back to it" and that gets modded up despite there being no such context in the original source [cnet.com]! Oh Slashdot, you so funny when you act like a kid and mod up the other kids!
You are a fool. First off, even without any references to check, the implied meaning in that statement is almost crystal clear. But I suppose in case you are too stupid, we can reference the interview the juror gave (which is actually the REAL original source).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY [youtube.com]
In it, at about the 4:00 mark he talks about trying to not get hung up on one question, so they do the simple things FIRST, so that when they come back it would be easier. At the 5:15 mark he says "we're gonna move on and come back to this". At the 6:10 mark he talks about how eventually they would come back to those question, and having moved on and answering the other questions taught them enough that it made those skipped questions easier to answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha, Slashdot is so pro-Apple it's painful
This is where I stopped reading, because if you can present an observation that blatantly flawed right out of the gate, then I expect nothing of value from the rest of your comment.
Re: (Score:3)
'The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.'
I guess that would have pretty much ended the apple v microsoft trial, since apple was using 68000 cpu's and microsoft windows ran on intel stuff. Not sure what the xerox star ran that apple copied to make their 'original work'.
And hey, weren't nokia and a number of other companies making smartphones for about 10 years before Apple? Isn't apple therefore running over any of their prior work?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Its a freaking cell phone.
Re:How was it not returned to? (Score:5, Interesting)
> What was the jury supposed to do other than to return to consider the item later? They had no choice, they HAD to consider it to arrive at a verdict.
They could have done the obvious thing: NOT SKIP IT.
As it stands, it sounds like they glossed over something because it seemed difficult. There is no taking that back. They refused to tackle the task with which they were entrusted head on. That casts doubt on the whole thing.
Re:Here is the Copy/Pasted Context, Please Show Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Now tell me, tell me where it says they returned to it? In 2-3 days they skipped it and returned to it? It happened fast and they skipped at least one instance of prior art. Please come to terms with it and deal with it instead of being blindly pro-Apple.
Well, let me walk you step-by-step through the way in which a skilled reader would parse it. Start with the original:
After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art. In fact we skipped that one, so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.
Now home in on the part in question:
After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art. In fact we skipped that one...
Now, what does "that one" refer to? There are two possibilities, so let's substitute them both into the sentence and see which one makes more sense:
After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art. In fact we skipped that patent...
Makes perfect sense.
After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art. In fact we skipped that prior art...
Hmm. Skipped the prior art that did not exist? Skipped the prior art whose existence they debated? Maybe. But they just talked about debating it, so in what sense could they skip it? Kind of a strained reading of the quote.
Well, they could debate something that had been claimed to be prior art but skip making a decision on it, but then the reasonable course of action would be skipping the decision on the patent as well. But they did make a decision on the patent, and to do so without making a decision on the prior art would be unreasonable.
So your interpretation requires both an unlikely parsing of the actual quote, and unreasonableness from the jurors. I'll take the simpler explanation, no pro-Apple bias needed.
Re:Que the False Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
The later section about how much they studied the instructions do not invalidate his rather shaky interpretation of what counts as prior art, esp since he did not use the same standard to determine what counted as infringement.
They did not follow the jury instructions completely. I was on a jury once (not at all related to patents) and one of the main instructions was to only allow the evidence shown during the trial influence your decision. Since the foreman used his own personal experiences to influence his (and others') decisions, he was not basing his decision on the trial evidence, but his own experiences.
Re:Que the False Narratives (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
That's moronic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Holding a patent should not invalidate one from serving on a jury on a patent related case; unless the case is related to your patent, in which case you never would have made it past jury selection.
Re:Que the False Narratives (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Que the False Narratives (Score:4, Informative)
That comment is wrong in many ways. The AC above me makes the legal points why your comment is nonsense. In my own experience on a jury, we couldn't even get the judge to clarify his instructions to us. Every time we asked the bailiff to clarify a certain instruction she would go to the judge to discuss it and she always came back with the response for us to read the instruction again and follow it as best we could. In no instance did the judge ever reword the instruction or give any other details. The instruction was there in relatively plain language, and we needed to follow that instruction. We weren't allowed to assume the instructions meant anything other than what was specifically stated. The same goes for the evidence, we weren't allowed to consider any evidence other than what was presented in court. We could question each side's interpretation of the evidence to determine how relevant it was, but we were only allowed to consider what was presented to us. That made all the difference too, the relatively young prosecutor had a minor problem with one of her charges that caused us to find the defendant not guilty of that specific charge, when in fact he should have been found guilty of something that he wasn't charged with. We were not allowed to reinterpret that charge or the judge's instructions in order to find the defendant guilty of what he actually did versus what he was being charged with. We deliberated for hours on that until it became clear exactly what we were being asked to do, and after that it took minutes to reach a verdict.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung can claim that the jury did not understand the testimony...
Actually, I think they did understand until Mr. Hogan derailed them by telling them his little story. My guess is the other jurors took Mr. Hogan as an expert in patent law which is obviously is not. They followed his lead right off the proverbial cliff.
I was going to say... (Score:3)
"I remember when I could have 6 or 7 A-HA! moments in one night."
I was going to say that you must be female to have that many in one night.
Then I realized you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about:
That was back in the days when MTV ran "Take On Me" music video in regular rotation.
But I suppose I could still say the same thing. My wife certainly gets a certain dreamy-eyed faraway look whenever A-HA! comes on the radio with "Take On Me"...
:-P