Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction 178
another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Case Reset... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.
Re:Case Reset... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst I'm very much an Apple fanboy, I hate this kind of patent nonsense. The whole case seems to be a very odd affair especially since the companies are so closely tied. Reminds me of NetApp vs SUN and the whole COW patent issue with ZFS. Those two settled their differences to stop hurting their customers. Apple really doesn't need to do all this as they have the better (imho) product and let's face it if we got rid of patents like this we'd be all be much better off.
Actually... (Score:1)
It caused a dent but didn't slow it down much (please remember that the presented figures are net average across quarters):
http://www.businessinsider.
Re: (Score:3)
What effing world do you live in? If Android is actually taking over the world, it's doing so because it offers more choices. It's not like Apple, where fannies only get one or two new products every year and salivate between releases. If this plethora of choices is somehow evil, I am gobsmacked at having thought otherwise my whole life.
Re: (Score:3)
P/E is one way to value a company. Apple's price though dependant on P/E isn't the only ratio that's a factor. The P/E has slipped but its the stability of the business model which also employs Apple's desirability as a share price.
In essence, the good raving tech reviews, its retail presence and its commercial support all factor into the equation.
Tech reviews are slipping and it's not making expected analyst outcomes regarding sales, though it still has a tremendous way to go, in some ways the GP does have
Re: (Score:2)
Warning about P/E, what was is not necessarily what will be. When you are buying shares you are buying on what will be, when you are selling shares you are selling because you don't believe what was will be as good as what will be. Even more importantly when selling because what became, was in fact worse than what will be, the act of attempting to unload what became of what you bought will further depress the price.
A word about the consumer bubble. A consumer bubble is where you psychological place peopl
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple had the better product, they wouldn't be hemorrhaging market share,
You clearly must feel Microsoft has the best software in the industry for the past 15 years running, right?
Re: (Score:2)
HA! oh, had to laugh at this one.
That's rich. When will we see the day that poor old Linux gets put in the Apple vs MS argument, I mean really. Is it too much to ask Apple lovers to argue logically? Oh you dont like Apple you MUST like Microsoft instead!
Desktop market is gone to MS and that crown will remain for some time but if we are talking about PC's in people's pocket we seriously have to consider the 3 big players, Google, Apple, MS. Not just Apple vs MS. I'd actually say MS hasn't EVEN come to the pa
Re: (Score:2)
Wait! The trophy hasn't been passed on yet... wait until the trucks with the 5c pieces show up at Cupertino first!
Re: (Score:2)
Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.
Not necessarily. First, the "misconduct" appears to be regarding his disclosure of prior litigation. Whether that's enough for a full mistrial is questionable, and even moreso if Samsung knew about it prior to trial. Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc. If Samsung was so concerned about someone with patent knowledge bein
Re:Case Reset... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc.
From the voire dire, Judge Koh talking to Hogan:
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your instructions. ...
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go, I think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr. Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. let's please start with Ms. Halim.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued when I was at weitek, also I.C. Design. Another one was at silicon graphics.
THE COURT: And it was also on I.C. Design?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, right.
THE COURT: Okay. Were patents issued?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you were the inventor on both?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience -- basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. ...
THE COURT: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr. Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr. Tepman?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think so, too.
It doesn't seem like the voire dire transcript entirely agrees with you. He was specifically instructed to not bring his patent experience into the jury room.
Re:Case Reset... (Score:4)
The rest of that instructions was
but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
Mr. Hogan educating the jury on his experience with registering his patents and his understanding of the finer points of patent law would not violate this?
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of that instructions was
but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
Mr. Hogan educating the jury on his experience with registering his patents and his understanding of the finer points of patent law would not violate this?
Depends on what exactly was said in the jury room. If he said "here's my life experience and I can talk about the process I went through, but those are different facts from this, so don't assume that what I went through was the same," then yeah, that's that's the "obviously, you will bring your life experience to your role as juror" part. If he said, "the judge is wrong, here's the right law," then that's not deciding the case on the law as they're instructed. Without a record of exactly what was said in th
Re:Case Reset... (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately, we know from Hogan what was said.
Emily Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused?
Vel Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's just get that out of the way first.
Emily Chang: Now when you first got into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right?
Vel Hogan: Yes.
Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway overwhelmingly in Appleâ(TM)s favour?
Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe lean the other way.
Emily Chang: Why?
Vel Hogan: Why? We were at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we would call an aha moment.
Emily Chang: Um hmmm.
Vel Hogan: And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent.
Emily Chang: Really?
Vel Hogan: Really. And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went patent by patent claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't valid.
Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about?
Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa.
Or how about...
Hogan: To try to make it as easy as possible - I have addressed this in other interviews that I have had - what it amounts to is there has been a big fuss since the deliberation that prior art was not considered. Prior art was considered.
When we had to determine the validity of Apple's patent against the charges of Samsung's with the prior art examples, what we had to do - to make it clear - is that not only did we have to validate, if you will, the Apple patent, but in looking at the prior art we had stipulations in the law that tested both sides and if the test wasn't passed then it was clear either the patent was valid or it wasn't.
Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
continued from the same interview...
And we're talking about Samsung's patent claim about combining a mobile phone with email [and a camera]?
Hogan: Exactly, in fact that is the one issue that we left on Wednesday night, the first day of deliberation, that had hung us up. And I, being the foreman, said because we had
Re: (Score:2)
There you go (Score:2)
If you disagree, you are a complete idiot. If you don't, you are an incomplete idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge has the power to conduct an inquiry into this situation and take sworn statements from the jurors. If your point is that Hogan is a lone voice here, then here is an quote from another juror, Manuel Ilagan, claiming that Hogan's analysis swayed the jury:
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about th
Re: (Score:2)
First, I simply can't understand how you come to your reading of Judge Koh's statement to the jurors pertaining to patent experience. In my reading it could not be more clear, the juror must put aside their experience on patents even though they may use the remainder of their personal experience.
Actually, that was presented in court. Legally, patents are presumed valid. They can be invalidated only by a showing of clear and convincing evidence.
The concern of the jurors was invalidation by prior art, not whether patents are presumed valid. Mr. Hogan's anecdote changed other juror's definition of prior art. That insinuates that he shared his views on the
Re: (Score:2)
basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
"I like all flavors of ice cream, but banana flavored." You are interpreting this sentence to mean that I like all kinds of ice cream without exception. I am interpreting this sentence to mean that I do not like banana flavored ice cream. The "but" in the judges sentence is important because it qualifies the previous clause. In other words, the juror will bring their life experience to the trial, BUT they must "set aside" or not consider their patent experience.
all three should have been rejected with cause. Therefore, that's not the right interpretation.
So, your counter argument is that the judg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope there is a new trial (or better, the whole damn thing gets thrown out), but that is anything but a foregone conclusion.
What are you talking about? The case without question will be appealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, still not right. I'm sure Ford had the same discussions internally about Chevy at some point.
Patents and Patent Infringement are not about protecting / stealing ideas, they are about protecting / stealing the particular method of an idea. The rest IMHO is justifiable hogwash built to create "outs" for companies to sue one another. Patent law shouldn't be applicable to what colors are used, what shape things are. It's evident that the products differ it's also evident that they are the SAME product.
htt [automobilemag.com]
It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers
That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."
Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The presumption of innocence still applies to civil cases. A judgment cannot be entered without meeting the burden of proof. That burden of proof just happens to be the relative measure of "perponderance of the evidence" (ie, a superiority of evidence, which ever side is more convincing/believable) and not "reasonable doubt", which is meant to be an objective standard.
Even if the defendant were to not respond to a lawsuit, one cannot obtain a judgement without evidence because zero evidence versus zero evid
Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (Score:5, Funny)
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
Re: (Score:1)
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
But I thought Samsung made so much money? Wasn't that the Fandroid talking point for the last week?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. its not Apple's lawyers job to make a case for samsung. It would be like the District attorney talking about the murder suspects charity work, how stupid the crime lab can be and how difficult it is to really know, like anything for certain.
Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (Score:5, Informative)
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients. A criminal lawyer may actually know for a fact that their client did actually commit the crime, but he still is required to represent him as best as possible even if his client is pleading not guilty. They really cannot do anything other than misrepresent the truth in that case.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Redacting" a document is altering evidence.
It's pretty blatant really.
It's much like faking video evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:1)
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Or holding up two devices and asking the Samsung lawyer which one supposedly didn't look like the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I do it right, you cannot tell the difference between my bare thumb and a shiny chrome plated thimble. Magicians use that to their advantage all the time and it can be accomplished even when standing 3 feet away.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them? Where one member of the team couldn't because they couldn't see well, but the rest of the team correctly identified them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.
Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (Score:4, Informative)
In re: misrepresent the truth.
You need to take a legal ethics class (go figure, lawyers are required to take an ethics class). A lawyer is not allowed to lie to the court, either in what they say or the documents they file. It makes it very hard for lawyers when they `know` that a client is guilty. Yes lawyers have to represent their clients as best they can but, at the same time, they cannot lie to the court. I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
PS: IANAL but my wife is and I still remember when she took her ethics class.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
It's not just that; if a lawyer knows (actually knows, for a fact, not just "is damn sure") that their client is guilty, they cannot represent their client's innocence to the court. They'd have to recuse themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If a lawyer knows his client his guilty, he cannot present a not guilty plea.
IANAL, but my close friend IS, as a brief.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients.
Hmmm...seems to me that taking a part of a quote out of context and presenting it such that it appears to say the exact opposite of what it actually meant in context is at best unethical and I would consider it an outright lie on the ethical scale I grade myself by. It seems to me in any profession other than advertising it would be considered so. Lawyers by definition of their trade are not supposed to act unethical. (I know. You can stop laughing now. I live in a fantasy world.)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/A-Legal-Matter-lyrics-The-Who/D566D519E4C1D6D5482569770028CEEC
I told you why I changed my mind
I got bored by playing with time
I know you thought you had me nailed
But I've freed my hand from your garden rails
Now it's a legal matter, baby You got me on the run
It's a legal matter, baby A legal matter from now on
My mind's lost in a household fog
Wedding gowns and catalogs
Kitchen furnishings and houses
Maternity clo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Republican would tell them: "Get a job, work hard, and don't depend on other people for handouts."
I'm not sure that's particularly bad career advice, honestly.
The irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, but I'd rather they didn't do it (as they didn't) - I don't care for the iPhone/iOS "experience" and I am not alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
so? everyone has different shipment schedules. the galaxy s3 has 2 or 3 versions. apple had to wait on the new qualcomm LTE chip
not like the iphone 5 was thought up, designed and tested only after the S3 came out
Re: (Score:2)
The galaxy s3 came out months before the iphone5.
I was referring to the effort that went into creating the first iPhone.
Re:The irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.
That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.
That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.
Errm, mind telling us who wrote the other 99%?
Re: (Score:2)
All Apple has contributed is making things look smooth and pretty.
And still that took work and effort that no one else at the time was willing to do.
Re:The irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
you are lying to yourself if you think the existing players werent creating an 'iOS experience' before apple came along.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the original iphone is 'the same old shit' with a new paint job.
you thought the original iphone is some new shit. (i say original because you reference the point in time when the iphone was released)
i feel that: if you dissect the phones' functionality you see that it is 99.99% same shit. with that
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no Apple fan, but to say that they didn't put work into them is lying to yourself.
Ummm...all Apple's crap is built on technologies that were designed, developed and refined over decades. Ever heard of BSD? That's the bases of there operating system. Want to bet there's several orders of magnitude more code in that part then the part Apple actually developed? All they did was put a semi-original shiny cover on it and then sue anyone else who developed something shiny.
Bad summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.
... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.
Re:Bad summary (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it. Wonder how they found 12 people without cell phones to be on a jury so as not to be influenced by what they had - or how the patent master was left as foreman. I can't understand how either side saw him as a plus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple?
Some guy has a shitty patent that he thinks is actually patent-worthy. Apple sues Samsung over some shitty patent. Some guy becomes foreman on the jury and says, "I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent," and gives his own shitty perspective on patent worthiness, with gems like, "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."
I mean, what the fuck, any software developer knows porting something to a new CPU doesn't make it novel
Re: (Score:2)
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent.
Well you're right, and now I'm thoroughly confused. The jury ruled Apple didn't infringe against the '460, and he's talking about Apple's software versus the "prior art", unless he's calling Samsung's software prior art? But then how is that "defending" the Samsung patent? I think he just used the wrong patent number and instead was talking about an Apple patent.
Re: (Score:1)
Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.
How quickly compared to what? The musings of media analysts in a vacuum on how long it "should" have taken? The jury in the previous-"biggest patent law case", Microsoft v. i4i, took only a couple days. Do you have any comparable trials to this one that you can point do with juries taking longer?
Re: (Score:1)
Who are then told what to think by a blatantly biased and arrogant fellow juror.
Still; no doubt in my mind Samsung opted to keep him in the final jury selection as a poison pill to guarantee a succesful appeal if they lost.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely miss the point. This wasn't just a court battle, it was a PR war. It had to be because the legal side is bogus and courts around the world are waking up to that. The PR war will survive longer than the legal one.
Yes, the jury saw the unredacted version. The court saw it. The lawyers saw it.
We didn't. The tame journalists Apple fed a pack of lies to before, during and after, didn't.
The jury didn't seem to fall for it, if rejecting Apples design patent claims means anything. Now we see the pack
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the judge get to allow his personal feelings and emotions to decide what is or is not allowed in the room he presides over?
If Apple had its way... (Score:1)
They would claim they patented the wheel and demand payment for any conveyor that uses round objects to get around.
Samsung marketing hard at work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me or does it seem like Samsung is hard at work trying to sway public opinion with these stories of late? I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?
Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?
The problem is that virtually all consumer technology has this issue, and since we would like to keep our toys, we conveniently ignore abuses like these. There's really no pleasent way around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.
CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.
Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.
Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also quite baffled. I'm seriously questionning the integrity of this site.
Re: (Score:2)
Recent bill of materials puts the iPhone 5 at around $200, and it starts at $650 without contract from AT&T. So the iPhone profit margins start at 325%.
AT&T sells the Samsung Galaxy S3 for $550 without contract. Don't kid yourself, there is no way the material cost is $530, the only way you'd get $20 profit per device. And we're excluding all their cheaper phones, since the S3 by itself outsold the iPhone in many markets the previous quarter or two.
The S3 bill of materials is hard to find, but let's
Something is wrong with PJ (Score:2, Insightful)
IAAL.
I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less
Re:Something is wrong with PJ (Score:5, Interesting)
for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.
I think you misunderstood the point. Samsung's patents have clear value and pretty much everyone who makes a smart phone has to license them, typically by cross licensing their own patents. Apple's patents are about design elements, may well be invalid or unenforceable and they are not interested in licensing them anyway. It's a problem for Apple because then they have to pay cash to license FRAND patents, and when looking at their net worth and assets such patents are generally worth very little if anything.
Mod Parent Up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What's strange about it is that she did an excellent job when covering the Apple v. Psystar.
Re:Something is wrong with PJ (Score:5, Informative)
Hello pot, kettle here!
I don't think you understand how FRAND operates. FRAND patents have to be put in a pool available to all for a set fee. They are essential in order to be able to operate in the space, things like communicating with cell towers... whereas a rounded rectangle patent isn't.
What PJ has pointed out was the stupidity of the current patent system where Apple is able to argue a patent for tapping the screen is worth an order of magnitude more than a patent -- if removed -- would render a device unable to function in any way with any modification, such as its radio transmitter.
Basically, you either have a strong bias for apple, are intentionally trying to slur groklaw, or are ignorant. There isn't anything wrong with being ignorant, but you shouldn't point firngers at others because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Something is wrong with PJ (Score:5, Funny)
IAAL.
I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.
I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.
(It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).
Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.
I bolded the part of your text that is actually relevant to the topic at hand.
That's how it is supposed to work (Score:2)
Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
That is pretty much what each side is supposed to do in the US legal system. Each side presents the evidence in the way they think best favors their case and then the judge/jury decides between them. Samsung has access (or is supposed to have access) to the same information and can present it if they think Apple is leaving out important details. Neither side has any obligation to present the opposition's case in a favorable light. If Samsung's lawyers didn't do their job well then it isn't surprising th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A car that is in good working order is still going to crash if it has a bad driver.
Similiarly, if you get a jury foreman who lies through his teeth just to get a chance to get even with the defendant, you are going to have problems.
There are decisions that can only be made by people, and people are also good at manipulating things. That is why no system will ever be perfect as long as people are involved.
Why were the documents redacted? (Score:2)
Groklaw has jumped the Samsung (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, right "unredacted" documents suddenly show they say the exact opposite of before - but why Samsung didn't show them in court remains a "mystery", it were originally theirs (just like the prior art they couldn't hand over in time - a looong time). Somehow nobody noticed that Apple had the "un" blacked in "We must make something more unlike the iPhone"
Are you fucking kidding me?
But hey, PJ proves it - by selectively only quoting what fits her agenda. And what has actually been in the "redacted" document
Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!
Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?
all art of taking things outta context (Score:2)
No COPY instruction?? (Score:1)
Nothing equivalent to
COPY A to B
?
Try something like this instead:
STORE 0 to B
ADD A to B
Coming up with a proprietary implementation is left as an exercise for Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
Unrecognized command
galaxy-s3$ dd if=A of=B
84+1 records in
84+1 records out
43219 bytes copied 0.083 seconds 5 MB/s
Bigger. BIGGER! (Score:1)
I hear the next Samsung phones will come with free large pizzas because the phones are shipped in similar sized boxes.
Patent has no copy requirement (Score:1)
A debate on whether or not Samsung actually copied Apple is not needed. Patent protection doesn't require the plaintiff to show the defendant actually copied their work. A patent protects against anything which infringes it no matter how it is derived. It is a much stronger protection than copyright.n Evidence of copying can help support a claim of infringement.
A copyright holder has to show the infringer copied the work. Two artists which independently created nearly identical works inspired by some o
Re: (Score:2)
That's the real problem with patents.
I can "re-invent" something trivial and violate a patent and not even be aware of it.
Patents are supposed to ease the burden rather than make it greater. That is something lost on patent boosters that have this misguided idea that society should be more open to granting 20 year long monopolies (especially on trivial things).
Patents are toxic waste treated like candy.
Patent is different than copyright (Score:2)
So the conlcusion is (Score:2)
that Samsung had shitty lawyers?
Of course Apple's lawyers are going to slant the everything towards their argument, that is their job after all. They can't rip out the pages that goes against their case before they supply the evidence to the other side, but these are Samsung's documents so surely Samsung's lawyers had access to them anyway.
Groklaw isn't thinking straight (Score:2, Insightful)
The primary thing this tells us is that Groklaw is so biased on this matter that they aren't thinking straight. Let's apply just a bit of common sense:
These are Samsung documents. Apple obviously does not have the power to hide the contents of Samsung's own documents. As is commonly the c
and.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple should be fined 10x their award (Score:2)
Or they can go to jail. Their call.