Samsung Routed In Apple Patent Fight; Told To Pay $1.05 Billion
from the ouch dept
The jury in the Samsung/Apple patent fight took nearly everyone by surprise by rushing through its job and finishing it way, way, way before anyone expected. They didn't even ask any questions and with about 700 questions to answer, they breezed through it in no time. It was not a total victory for Apple (apparently the design patent on rounded-edge rectangles wasn't infringed), but it was pretty close. In the end, Samsung was found to infringe an awful lot of things (and sometimes willfully) and the the final bill is a stunning $1.05 billion owed to Apple. There's still a lot to sort through in the details, but this is a massive victory for Apple. Of course, Samsung has probably already written up its appeal (or will ask the judge to set the jury verdict aside or something), so this case is likely to be around for many years, but yet again we see just how ridiculous patent law can be. What the hell is wrong with competing in the marketplace? If Apple thinks Samsungs' phones and tablets are too similar? Well, keep on innovating. It's called competition, and now we'll have less of it...Minor update: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. While this will be corrected and won't change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously. When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money. But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this. It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: android, damages, infringement, ios, patents, phones, tablets, willful
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth
bwahahahahahahaahah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although, I must admit, I was momentarily confused when I purchased my samsung and it read "samsung".. so close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not entirely surprised
They consistently made week arguments and was denied to show "compelling" evidence that it later shot itself in the foot with. When they were denied, they were compelled to beg to Judge Koh 3 times for it to make the same bits of evidence submissible. They were almost held in contempt of court.
The only reported mistake Apple made was make a detailed 75 page document full of legalese for the jury to use, which if translated to common English would be only 2 pages standard college ruled notebook paper.
Both companies were extremely silly I might add. It was as if it were an argument over whose penis was larger.
I'm going to skip over "Apple should have lost" and "Samsung Deserved to pay Apple" and point something out from a psychological standpoint. The more weekness you show in your rebuttals to the jurors, the less likely you'll gain their sympathy and favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not entirely surprised
Apparently Apple is the reigning champ of the 'hung jury'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not entirely surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not entirely surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not entirely surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, is Apple a member of CCIA? I figured you'd know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every time mike takes a side he's automatically called a company shill even if Mike has previously criticised them and continues to do so in the future.
Makes me think you only defend someone after being paid off and thus assume everyone else behaves the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, he's already been outted as a paid shill for Google. It's no bigger stretch than his claim that the jury's error was because they 'rushed through' their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try reading the article; here's his own quote:
...and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.
Your derp is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Working on a study commisioned by the CIAA doesn't make you a shill for everyone in the CIAA, your derp is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus Mike's points are consistant with his statements BEFORE google was even a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does it discredit you to be paid to speak to things you yourself already claimed before the entity that pays you to speak even was able to pay you?
Getting paid to speak is only unetical when you don't believe in what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does it discredit you to be paid to speak to things you yourself already claimed before the entity that pays you to speak even was able to pay you?
Getting paid to speak is only unetical when you don't believe in what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clash of the Titans. Hopefully too many mortals won't be squished.
It's also the exact opposite of a free market.
ANY monopoly destroys the inherent efficiency of capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the judge or an appeals court throws out the jury's findings, even in part, will you concede that maybe the jury didn't render an appropriate decision?
It's a bit early to be patting the jury on the back for a job well done when the judge has already found some errors in their findings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the judge or an appeals court throws out the jury's findings, even in part, will you concede that maybe the jury didn't render an appropriate decision?
It's a bit early to be patting the jury on the back for a job well done when the judge has already found some errors in their findings.
If the appellate court finds that the jury erred, I'll be fine with it. Unlike a certain shill who is apoplectic over the current verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Troll use fancy word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More skipped English classes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apoplectic = to be overcome by anger
Shill = Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it's in NO way appropriate to allow any company to forbid others from using rounded edges on rectangles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Was this
We don't have to pretend - because it isn't true. E.g. the case in the UK was thrown out and the case in S. Korea ended in a kind of stalemate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Update...
Do you know how to read?
"A California jury on Friday found Samsung had infringed on the majority of the patents in question"
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/technology/apple-samsung-verdict/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Update...
Some lower-middle class people not wanting to be taken away from their jobs for up to a few months for a real deliberation on the merits.
One reason why I feel we need to, in cases like this, empanel people on the jury who are specialists in technology and who will understand these arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, really Samsung DID rip off Apple
But really, yeah - it's true. Samsung ripped 'em off. And in the meantime they gave all that juicy technology to the masses on Verizon Wireless for a fraction of the cost of the Apple Army. The only thing they didn't do was have a Korean guy who looks like Steve Jobs die of some incurable disease like cancer but not exactly like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, really Samsung DID rip off Apple
That's all been discussed. It really had to do with the software coding of the pointer device we now know as a mouse.
Furthermore, I believe it was Steve Jobs who hacked his Xerox PARC terminal to keep the mouse cursor on screen which was code implemented on the Macintosh. Not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, really Samsung DID rip off Apple
Claiming sole ownership is foolish at best.
Plus many patents are trivial nonsense that just reflect the state of the art.
At one time Apple realized that both art and invention are mostly copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, really Samsung DID rip off Apple
My father recently retired from teaching Chemistry. He used an Apple IIe to educate us about the morcular structure and pH Balence if acids and bases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple fanboi, tragic results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time it'll be the Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this.
So I guess it couldn't be a clerical or drafting error huh? Because you hate the decision you ascribe the worst of case scenario to the error. You shills are all alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:36pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:36pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:36pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damages award lowered..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damages award lowered..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good call by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difficulty comprehending large numbers
For instance, look at those file-sharers who had hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars of judgments leveled against them for sharing a couple dozen songs. Look at the federal deficit in the US. And now look at this jury verdict for damages (which from what I hear could very well be tripled, since the jury was only supposed to determine wilfulness, but not consider it in damages)
Perhaps humans lose perspective whenever they consider amounts of money that exceed what they will ever earn in their entire lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
Median wage in the US: $45,016 in 2003.
I think he got it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
http://www.mathwords.com/m/median_of_a_set_of_numbers.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
But ok use ad-hock math and statistics to try to prove how someone shouldn't be able to make billions in a certain amount of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
$47,619 odd dollars is damn close to the median of $45,018
On the wikipedia chart, there's 59,835,000 households below the bracket containing $47,619. There's 51,739,000 households above the bracket containing $47,619. Which means that $47,619 is off of the very center by 13%, which isn't enough to make a difference when talking about incomes amounting to $1billion dollars.
The second to the top bracket is $200,000 to $249,999 annually (the top bracket is >=$250,000), and at $249,999 annually it would take 4000.016 years to make a billion dollars. The sum of the brackets below >=$250,000 account for 98.5% of the households in the United states. In a sample of 100 households, you can expect about two of them to make $250,000 annually or more. That means 98.5% of the population can't expect to ever make anything even approaching 1 billion dollars in their whole lives.
You're argument is spurious at best, because it deals in rare exceptions to the rule, and even then, completely ignores the spirit of the OC's statement, you dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
Once again, the word median is used wrongly. Median refers to the MIDDLE NUMBER IN A SEQUENTIAL COUNT.
Take the numbers 1, 23, 50
The MEDIAN is 23
What you are calculating is business financing Alegbra not statistics.
This is the third time I've pointed it out.
Once again, ANYONE and ANY household that makes $45,000US can make wise stock investments. Go back 35 years to when Apple was started by two people who sold their positions to fill make the Apple 1.
Or fastforward to 1996 where APPLE'S net worth LITERALLY $95.76US and after a few wise investments that value grew to millions and eventually billions.
I don't see how hard it is to grasp the simple idea that it is posdible to make that much if you invest wisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Median
The only thing I can think of is that you somehow object to the validity of the phrase "median US income". In common usage, that phrase refers to income value of the middle US individual (or household, sometimes) if ordered by income. To use your emphatically stated definition, it is the middle number in the sequential counting of all incomes in the US.
Perhaps if you take a moment to point out a specific mistake in a previous comment we could have a more meaningful conversation. For example, the number $45,016 was given; since you clearly dispute that this is a "median", what is the correct name for this value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Median
So obviously I'm going to get it wrong. I'm sorry, I really am. We both reacted very negatively towards each other an I'm
sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Median
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
Wow, way to call names and make things so much simpler to understand. Yup I'm a dick when I correct someone's error is using math terms..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rounded Rectangles and Rubber Bands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No - because what this actually means is that resources will be transferred from technology to the legal system - since winning in court matters more than winning in the market.
Also I WANT the companies to copy each other as much as possible - because that means that the user interfaces will all be similar and I won't have to waste my precious time learning a new one for every device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious nonsense.
If after making Billions, they are now in a position where they have to up their game again then that's not such a tragic thing.
20 years is a rediculously long time allow them to interfere with the next guy to come along. It doesn't matter what kind of artistic megalomania rhetoric you wish to employ.
If you want some perspective on this, I suggest you restrict yourself to a 20 year old desktop computer. Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, not true at all. Don't forget that Apple was innovating despite all the previous copying/imitation products. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that the copying of their products motivated Apple to stay on their toes and innovate rather than stagnate.
Imagine a classroom full of kids on an art assignment. One of the kids creates a rectangle frame and then pronounces to the rest of his classmates that he *owns* that shape and that nobody else is allowed to incorporate that shape in their art. That's the equivalent of what occurred here.
And boo-hoo about the similar interface -- seriously, WHO CARES? Like nobody has anything better to do than worry about friggin' interface similarities! No matter what anyone says, it wasn't worth awarding Apple over $1 billion. It's not as if Samsung took the underlying chipset used in Apple phones and just stuffed them into their line of phones and then plastered their name brand on top.
This ruling is going to have the unfortunate consequence of creating a chilling effect on the rest of the tech industry. Further, this will encourage patent-holders to pursue legal action and scare off potential competitors from the markets, fostering in a monopoly. And here's the kicker: the justice system (i.e. government) can cherry-pick its preferred monopoly by dishing out completely one-sided judgements in kangaroo courts.
If South Korea is considering signing the TPP treaty (*note* 100% unapproved by American citizens), this case ought to make them think twice. When you can literally own a shape(!) and sue anyone else for using it, something is seriously amiss. Innovation and competition are both on the chopping block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a way you could say that Apple pointed people in right direction for the future of computer use (First Macintosh came out in 1984....took everyone long enough to catch up...what 9 years later Windows 3.0 comes out as a viable contender). When the Macintosh came out, it was the first time easy desktop publishing became availible to home users.
Apple also helped create type faced fonts as we know them. Wikipedia has a great article about True Type Font.
So to say that they are unintuitive is something of a miss since they tend to point people in the right direction.
Oh, by the way...I was 4 years old when my family bought a Mac Plus. All my dad had to do to tell me how to use the computer was "Click twice rapidly click the mouse button twice after pointing the arrow on something."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, cause there's nothing innovative about a rectangle with rounded edges!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copying
I suspect you haven't thought this through. Sure, second-movers could "simply copy" the guys who came before, but how does that help them? In order to capture market share, they need to not only copy the previous design, but undercut prices by being more efficient with production. That's a "better way of creating a product" right there!
Now imagine you're the first company. You were doing great for a while, you had a new and exciting product, you could set your own prices, then some jerks come in and start competing with you. What is your best strategy? More innovation. Come up with another new product. Create a brand new market where you can make tons of money. Sure, the other guys will eventually copy your design, but you'll have a few years before they figure it out.
If copying is illegal, a company only needs to innovate once and can ride that idea forever. Profits will never decrease because no one is allowed to compete.
If copying is legal, the only way to be profitable is to create something. The copying firm needs to discover cheaper ways to make the same product, and the inventive firm needs to keep creating new products to stay ahead of the copycats. Any company that stops being creative, that stops producing economic value to society, also stops making money. Isn't that how it should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Samsung.com Domain Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That jury should be hung for treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know I wouldn't take it very seriously if I were forced to decide something as ridiculously pointless as whether some phones are too similar to one another. In all likelyhood, those people just wanted to get out of there ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SAMSUNG wins on korea
NOTE other nations then the usa have told apple not to comeback to court on this issue
so this pretty much again is a USA only victory and ya know if i were samsung id just leave the usa alone and let them sink, they all owe too much anyhow 16 trillion debt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH BOY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always get a laugh when you try to draw this conclusion.
If Samsung's phones are too similar, they are going to have to (gasp!) innovate to come up with different ways to do certain things. Their ignoring patents in theory meant they didn't innovate as much as they replicated. That they are successful in the market duplicating is really an issue.
So now they are in a place where, if they want to be in the phone market, they need to innovate for real. The end result of this ruling may in fact be much MORE innovation, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should patent the idea of cars flying around in the future. There that should set my family up for good in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500266-37/apples-$1049343540-victory-google-dont-tr ead-on-me/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Samsuck can't compete. That's what this is all about
Fewer choices for things that all look and act the same, because we slavishly copy Apples designs,
Less innovation, because we aren't capable of innovating our way out of this,
And higher prices because if we have to do our own R&D, it's gonna cost ya'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Samsuck can't compete. That's what this is all about
What I don't want is a Microsoft MS-DOS style situation where I am basically forced to use the crappy monopoly product or do without.
Ironically Microsoft was doing a lot of this "tablet" type stuff before Apple was. They just weren't doing it in a very marketable way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation
Now here's what I'm thinking. The patent system is broken because we have pattent trolls. Anyone notice how lawyers are always the only ones who start complaining?
Ok so back to my statement about Samsung. The whole point of a patent system is to be able to due one of two things. Either build upon someone else's design with a licensing agreement, or create something different and new. Either way it is difficult to do.
The patent system creates a lot of competition and choice because of certain innovations being different from each other. That's called consumer choice. It is about creating new components and materials. When you combine those two into a workable product it's called design.
So the patent system isn't broken, people are. The parent wars have been nothing but a lawyer feast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innovation
That's the beauty of it. I condone copying under 3 conditions.
1. It's not a direct coppy cat product.
2. You improve upon the design with certain mechanisms that are licensed by you or to you (Apple's 800K double density 3.5" "SuperDrive" was based around the 400Kilobyte Sony version).
3. You establish and negotiate what the boundaries are between what products you wish to copy.
Plain and simple. That's how patents work pertaining to copying. I honestly think pattent trolling boils down to hubris and ego which are human traits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Innovation
The item being copied is not inventive enough to warrant a 20 year monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Innovation
So just because you offer something that almost NOBODY else does or can remotely compete with does not constitute a Monopoly.
A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Given that Apple was not the only supplier in the home computing market , it seems to me that you have a very biased opinion. The only reason we hear about Apple so much is because they may or may not be entirely responsible for brining the computer home and have been doing it since 1977 starting with the Apple II.
Just because they thought outside of the cat litter box successfully, does not constitute that they ever had a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't want to be limited to Apple products
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Conflict of Interest.
I personally have de-facto recused myself from a jury on considerably smaller grounds of interest. That is, I made a statement before a hundred witnesses, stating that I could not be impartial. It was a accident case, involving a woman who had slipped and fallen on a slippery floor. The plaintiff lawyer declared his intention to call a professor of Safety Engineering as an expert witness, and the defense didn't choose to call any expert, so I said that I had taken courses in both Safety Engineering and Human Factors Engineering in engineering school. The court bailiff directed the lawyers to continue interviewing me in camera, and the plaintiff lawyer practically pleaded with me to say the right words which would allow him to put me on the jury, hoping that I would be in alliance with his witness, and I firmly declined to do so, while the defense lawyer said nothing, but doubtless made note of grounds to strike me from the jury pool for cause. That is simply what honorable men do, as a matter of course.
I often disagree with Ronald J. Riley, but I have every confidence that in a similar circumstance, he would also recuse himself. Hogan seems to hold most of the same views as Riley, only without Riley's outspoken candor.
That said, I am scandalized that the judge allowed this man to serve as a juror, and a jury foreman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, Karen Gullo and Douglas MacMillan, "Apple-Samsung Jury Foreman Says Google E-Mail Persuasive," August 25, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-says-google-e-mail-pe rsuasive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H oward Mintz, "Jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung: Verdict a message that copying is a big risk"
Posted: 08/25/2012 04:48:20 PM PDT
August 26, 2012 2:16 AM GMTUpdated: 08/25/2012 07:16:19 PM PDT
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21400423/jury-foreman-apple-v-samsung-verdict-message- that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www .linuxforums.org/forum/coffee-lounge/191346-apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-scumbag-patent-troll.html
(404 error, but I read the headline and patent number on Google)
http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Conflict of Interest.
I just want a bit of clarity. I believe in you are right. There is a giant conflict of interest. I just need a bit of clarity as to if what I asked in the first paragraph is the right assumption, and if I'm wrong, please correct the error, I won't argue back because I believe in your expertise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Conflict of Interest.
Damn iPod autocorrect has been derping like that since iOS 5.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Conflict of Interest. (to Wally, #118)
My over-riding impression of the '953 patent is that it is a collection of "word-salami," or "donkey's breakfast," covering concepts which are to be found in sophomore-level computer science textbooks published twenty to forty years ago, which are not identified as such. I was taught about doubly and singly linked lists in 1983, in Sophomore PL/I Programming (ie. "Data Structures and Algorithms"), and I have reason to believe that they were invented in the 1950's. Hogan did not invent them in 2002. The '953 patent does not _teach_ much of anything. It more or less describes the functionality of of a TV tuner card I bought for the bargain-basement price of a hundred dollars from Tiger-Direct in 2001, and the bundled software which came with it. As far as I know, such tuners for PC's came on the market, at higher prices, some time in the early 1990's. A clever lawyer could construe the patent to mean almost anything, due to its extreme vagueness. Before reading the patent, I took one look at the figures, and said to myself, "my God, this is _ancient_ stuff!" At for the intellect of patent examiners Thai Q. Tran and Nigar Chowdhury... Jesus H. Christ!!!
But of course, even it the patent were valid, there would still be a conflict of interest, even if Hogan wanted to sit as a juryman in a case involving, say, pharmaceutical patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jury Conflict of Interest. (to Wally, #118)
Perhaps it was for the design of the components that allow FaceTime to function on the 4th Gen iPod Touch, iPhone 4 (all versions), and all iPads.
I read a bit in there that vaugely mentioned receiving data packets using temporary cache lines and deleting said packets once buffered and revived in full.
To give you an idea about FaceTime. You know those video phones you see in Total Recall (the classic Arnold version). FaceTime is just like that. It allows you to use a P2P connection to another iPod, iPhone, or iPad user over a WiFi connection to talk to another person the way regular voice phones would work......
My god I just thought of something...
You mentioned how this '953 patent looked like a copy of an "ancient" data structures and algorithms from the 1950's? Maybe that's a reference patent of sorts but with the added design of video phone chat designed specifically for FaceTime.
The timing of the audio/video in FaceTime when close to a WiFi source is comparable to that of a POTS Phone line which would verify the algyrythms from the 1950's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Conflict of Interest. (to Wally, #118)
Ekiga, in the Linux distributions, tended to be much more conservative about the features it added, not feeling so much need to enable hand-holding by support techs.
Of course, you understand that people in the military were doing videoconferencing way, way back. I should think at least as far back as 1980. Military projects have a way of constituting prior art, because cost was no object, so they did everything years before anyone else could afford it. In about the year 1956, they had my father programming a video terminal.
What is different about FaceTime, compared to NetMeeting and Ekiga, is its use of WiFi. However, it is immediately obvious, given the existence of WiFi, to run various and sundry applications over Wi-Fi. See my discussion here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/11494415363/patent-loving-court-strikes-again-caf c-orders-uspto-to-reconsider-ntp-patents-it-had-rejected.shtml#c34
Also see:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090312/1711214100.shtml#c334
The notion of protecting user interfaces with design patents is essentially a re-hash of the old visual copyright business, back around 1990. The courts rejected visual copyright, and, by the same reason, they would reject the use of design patents to cover user interfaces. As for ownership of interfaces, you might take a look at the letter I had published in the December 1990 issue of BYTE (p. 34). This was concerned with the ultimate ownership of user interfaces. I argued that the value of user interfaces consisted in the skills of the users. Perfectly good user interfaces were in the remainder bin for want of users. That said, the concept of peonage law applies to user interfaces, and the user interface rightfully belongs to the users. On the whole, the piece has stood up fairly well, given that I do not possess the second sight. The essence of a good user interface is that it is so obvious and/or grounded in prior usage (prior art) that you can use it by reflex-- you don't have to stop and think about what things mean. For a user interface, "original and unobvious" means bad and defective. By the same reasoning, server interfaces derive their value from the documents stored on the servers in question. If there is nothing on a server, the server is worthless, and so are its constituent parts.
The true points of novelty of FaceTime, and of smart-phone apps generally, are not so much technical, so much as they are a matter of marketing. The smartphone market is a very different market from traditional computer markets, involving different kinds of people, who do different kinds of things. That is simply not patentable.
I find smartphones rather alien. In my generation, you were an early adopter of computers if you were an engineer, or a writer, or something like that. Or, perhaps I should say, because you were an engineer or a writer. Computers fitted into a certain sort of lifestyle, based on careful workmanship and all. The computer replaced older tools such as the typewriter, or a set of mechanical drawing tools. The great advantage of a word processor over a typewriter was that it made revision and rewriting simple. You sat at a desk in a room of your own, surrounded by bookshelves, with the door closed so that people could not disturb you, and concentrated. I take it for granted that the right use of computers is to reduce the number of things which one has to physically chase after. I don't feel the need for a smart-phone. I do feel the need for Amazon to have better robots, so that they can provide better service. When I go out for a walk, it's for the sake of going out for a walk, and the last thing I want to do is to carry along a cellphone.Smartphones are being sold to people who are not like me, rather the reverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly the jury were not acting properly, Apple infringed on Samsungs patents (we all know it), Apple simply claim the licensing is too much and the patent is FRAND and the jury find them not guilty... just because it has been standardized does not mean you can ignore it, it just means that there are limitations on licensing fees. get Apple get away with just ignoring it entirely, how much of this is a South Korean company vs. and American company in the USA legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like some more prior art for Patent 915
(http://www.sonycsl.co.jp/lab/tokyo/)
(http://www.sonycsl.co.jp/person/rekimoto/smartskin/)
Most Damning is the Tablet one from 34 seconds on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like some more prior art for Patent 915
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evening dresses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]