Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT

:-)



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT

:-D



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT

I don't see how this judge can let the verdict stand.

Especially after Hogan is going around shooting his mouth off

about this. I don't see how anyone could argue sanctity of

the the deliberation process when the jury foreman is giving

, not just one interview, but a weeks worth of interviews

detailing the deliberations.



Mouse The Lucky Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT

;-)



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:41 PM EDT

:-|



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT

I think the one thing I am most eager to see are Samsung's

motions to reverse the verdict, Apple's response, and the

judges ruling. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT

How much, if anything, of what the foreman says now is admissible in an appeal?



---

---

That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT

Oh yeah.



This guy made a huge mistake, actually a lot of huge mistakes....



But



He may be making up for them with his inability to keep quiet :-)



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT

Demon-Xanth: Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial? Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system. I read this a bit differently than PJ. ISTM the foreman is saying that the validity questions were limited to whether things are patentable, and the jury couldn't ask whether they ought to be patentable. The things he's said about Prior Art needing to be 'interchangable' remain worrying, of course - and, I think, even moreso in light of this comment from the Gizmodo thread: I am very familiar with prior art I had to defend the claims in my patents against prior art in order have my patents to be issued [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT

How much of this would really come into it on appeal? Isn't the question whether

ANY reasonable jury could come to these conclusions, not was this jury

reasonable in how it came to these conclusions? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:14 PM EDT

This question is open to interpretation...



Did you have the opportunity to ask "Are the software

algorithms or the 'rectangle with round edges' design

something that should be patentable?" during the trial?



And the response was 'It is not up to the jury to judge if

particular subject matter is or is/not patentable'



Firewheels' question on the other hand was right on the mark

- no wriggle room at all

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT

For me, the response to Wanhang's question has the most

disturbing content:



"Read the law and the statues covering Prior art"



Here we have a foreman who thinks he knows the law - Correct

me if I am wrong, but it is not up to the jury to 'know the

law' but rather to 'determine the facts'?



The foreman (thought) he 'knew the law', and in having that

knowledge, his determination of the 'facts' got skewed -

i.e. The determination of fact was based on something NOT

presented in evidence during the trial

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:29 PM EDT

It's come up already twice in this discussion alone.

Very broadly jury testimony is considered sacrosanct, and

post trial statements generally are not enough to overturn

them. This however is the broad principle which is used as a

guide. Just as hearsay is broadly inadmissible. However

those of us who know a little bit more about the law then

the average person, know that there are 27 exceptions ( last

I heard ) to the hearsay rule.



I've tried to look up the case law on post trial statements,

and it's murky at best. Most importantly all the case law

I've seen is all in regards to criminal law, and civil law

can be a very different animal.



Since television came out it's been more and more of a

problem, and has gotten even bigger with the internet. I

think the courts are going to have to give some serious

thought to this. So if you or someone out there knows a

legal expert who might chime in, now is the time to do it.



Personally, if I were on SCOTUS, I would say something like

this: If there are public statements calling a verdict into

question, the judge can call in the jurors and ask them

about deliberations. The jurors have the right to answer

none or some of the questions, but if they fail to answer

questions then the public statements have to be considered

as "the best evidence of what happened during deliberations"

.



Mouse the Lucky Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT

I think people are exaggerating Hogan's motives. It does

seem clear though that Hogan's motive's are not malicious.

That does not excuse them. I think Hogan did a poor job

based on mental laziness which is going to cost millions in

wasted court time. Not to mention wasting the time of the

lawyers, judge and jury. I do think however that we should

listen to the adage, "Never attribute to malice, which can

be attributed to stupidity."



Put simply, Hogan is an idiot too stupid to know he is an

idiot.



perhaps the dumbest interview question I have been asked as

a programmer is "Are you a great programmer?". The reason is

simple. The crappiest programmers I knew all would have

answered yes without a thought, and all the great

programmers would have answered "I'm good, but there are all

these things I don't know.". There was even a psychology

paper on this. I deduced that the better programmers were

the better programmers because they understood their

deficiencies, and the weaker programmers didn't understand

their weaknesses.



------------------------

Mouse The Lucky Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT

It's clear that the jury picked the worst possible person to be its foreman.

It's hard to believe that Samsung allowed this person on the jury. It will be

interesting when the trial transcript is issued to see the voire dire process to

see how this person made it onto the jury. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT

My goodness, Mr.Hogan seems to be converting Darl's patented footgun into a GAU-8 Avenger, straight out of an A-10, Warthog_cannon Really can't get any better than this. :D! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT

I thought the same as firewheel. If the prior art doesn't count because it is

not interchangable, then how on earth did Samsung when the code is not

interchangable. Me thinks he was fooled by his own self smartness. [ Reply to This | # ]



Aye - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT

Some of the foreman's statements are so patently (pun intended) absurd.



Can there be a mistrial?



Please, pretty please.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:57 PM EDT

I am guessing the foreman was confused by the last paragraph

of page 40 of the instructions.

---------------------

In deciding whether any difference between a claim requirement and the

product or method is not substantial, you may consider whether,

at the time of the alleged infringement, persons of ordinary skill

in the field would have known of the interchangeability of the part

or software instructions with the claimed requirement.

The known interchangeability between the claim requirement and

the part or software instructions of the product or method is

not necessary to find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

However, known interchangeability may support a conclusion that

the difference between the part or software instructions and

the claim requirement is not substantial. The fact that a part

or software instructions of the product or method performs the same

function as the claim requirement is not, by itself, sufficient

to show known interchangeability.

-----------------------

It seems that the foreman at least has the ideas

given here backwards. I suspect that he quickly

skimmed and basically cherry-picked those sentences

and paragraphs that allowed him to come to the

conclusion he already had decided he wanted to come to.



The interchangeability that is mentioned here

only applies to infringement, and not to prior art

which is invalidating.



Pages 44 and 46-47 of the instructions make fairly

clear that at least some if not all of Apples utility

patents were invalid due to one or more reasons.

And I am guessing these either got short-shrift

or were misinterpreted due to an overly broad

application of the last bit on page 40.



I also think it an excellent point that whatever

'logic' or 'illogic' was being applied to the utility

patents, it was not uniformly applied.



The same knife should have cut both ways,

and not turned into rubber only when

being used for Samsung, while being 'diamond' hard

and razor sharp when being used for Apple. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:55 PM EDT

We who inhabit arcane realms are oft wont to stray from the chief purpose

of our language. (My arcane realm is poetry)



Or more plainly. The jury instructions were written with all the skill of a

non-

English speaking technician in China preparing new product instructions with

the aid of a Chinese to Swahili dictionary and "English for Swahili

speakers, a

tourist's guide"



A suggestion for next time.



Instruction 1

Do not try to second guess the law. You MUST only use the judges

descriptions of the law not what you think you know.

Instruction 2

You MUST consider each question on this form in detail and in turn.

Instruction 3

Only evidence presented in court counts, if any juror tries to persuade the

rest of you he knows better, ignore him completely, he is a fool.





Then give the questions. Any longer set of instructions written in any more

complex language is very likely to be ignored. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT

We who inhabit arcane realms are oft wont to stray from the chief purpose

of our language. (My arcane realm is poetry)



Or more plainly. The jury instructions were written with all the skill of a

non-

English speaking technician in China preparing new product instructions with

the aid of a Chinese to Swahili dictionary and "English for Swahili

speakers, a

tourist's guide"



A suggestion for next time.



Instruction 1

Do not try to second guess the law. You MUST only use the judges

descriptions of the law not what you think you know.

Instruction 2

You MUST consider each question on this form in detail and in turn.

Instruction 3

Only evidence presented in court counts, if any juror tries to persuade the

rest of you he knows better, ignore him completely, he is a fool.





Then give the questions. Any longer set of instructions written in any more

complex language is very likely to be ignored.



---

There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: shachar on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:47 AM EDT

Someone over at slashdot commen ted that the federal rules say that nothing the foreman now says, essentially, is admissible on appeal. Now, this is not to say Samsung cannot bring this to the attention of the Judge in order to influence her decision on the JMOL motions, but strictly speaking, that would be two wrongs to correct a right, not proper procedure. Shachar [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT

Where are the rest of the jurors? Can't anyone get them for an interview?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT

I urge everyone to read for themselves the patent this person holds. Keep in mind: Tivo was shown as a product in 1999. His application is from 2002. Of course he wanted every Apple patent to be upheld. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:12 AM EDT

Jury verdicts have been tossed many times before for just this

reason



Here's a few good examples



http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/ju

ry_misconduct/JUROR%20MISSTATEMENTS%20OF%20LAW.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:47 AM EDT





I'm suprised that you haven't extracted some juicy quotes from the unedited BBC

interview too.





I know you linked it in a previous article, but Firewheels questions, is an echo

of this statement by the foreman....



"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to

read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not

the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was

involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the

new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work,

and the converse of that was true."





I can read source code me, can I haz a patent?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: yorkshireman on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT

The foreman has got this "Interchangeable" concept regarding prior art in his head and takes that to mean that unless prior art runs unmodified on the patented device (and vice-versa??) the prior art is invalid. I haven't read of anyone else, anywhere on the Internet who agrees with his view on this. But assuming this is an honest mistake he must have got his idea from somewhere? Could it be that he heard some discussion in the court about terms used in patent claims being interchangeable and mentally extended that to software being interchangeable - because, if that were true,then it would give him a faint chance to defend his own patent?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 06:40 AM EDT

Let's Face It - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT

Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 07:35 AM EDT

jonmpls 18 hours ago

Given that you were specifically told not to use the judgement amount

to punish, why did you and the other jurors do exactly that?



Velvin Hogan @jonmpls 17 hours ago

We did not punish, our judgement was fail and about half of what Apple

was asking for. When willfully infringed and get caught you must pay

the price. That is how our system works,



--------------------------------------------------



I thought the articles here implied the judge had the task of deciding whether

any infringement found was willful (and possibly tripling jury damage awards).



This quote implies they found the infringement willful and had to "pay the

price". Does this mean they tripled the damages themselves? If so is that

grounds for the judge to reduce damages?



Given that he groups "willful infringed" with "pay the

price", and the jury did not find any of samsungs patents infringed could

the jury have been confused and used willfulness as the criteria for finding

infringement rather than differentiating between willful/inadvertent

infringement?



Chuck [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT

Maybe something good can come out of this: i'm proposing a new figure of speech

- "pulling and Hogan".

Definition - making an argument or decision based on misinterpretation and

misunderstanding of reality and rules and laws regulating particular realm.

Example - "Oracle pulled a "Hogan" with overreaching copyright

claims"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jpvlsmv on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT

To me, this case has illustrated the problem that the courts run into in patent cases: We have court-designated experts trying to explain concepts written by patent lawyers, describing what someone of ordinary skill in the art would know, to a jury of peers (randomly selected people, with a selection bias against the informed or opinionated). Is it any wonder that people who don't write software don't understand how software is written? Is it any wonder that people who don't grok computers are confused when an expert tries to explain to them what "non-random, horizontal-spatially distinct and chronologically arranged" means? (Apple '134 patent) --Joe [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT

Its entirely possible that the jury was asked not to decide on if something

should

be patentable (is that a word?)?



They probably were asked to decide if the patent was valid or not? They could

have been instructed by the judge not to first decide if something is patentable



or not.



Secondly if the law cannot be explained to ordinary people then how can they

obey the law. Even patent laws have to be understood by all.



Not knowing the law or not understanding it, correct me if I am wrong is not a

defense. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT

Seeing as how he continues to rely on the "interchangeable"

issue why then does an interviewer not ask the following

question:



You said the prior art was not valid because Apple's code could

not run on that platform and that code could not run on

Apple's. Why then does the Samsung code infringe since the

Samsung code can not run on iOS and Apple's code cannot run

on Android? Since they are not interchangeable, does that

mean they cannot infringe? [ Reply to This | # ]



Interchangeable Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT Interchangeable Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT Interchangeable Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT

This guy must be absolutely brain dead. What a mouth breather.



They should have some kind of IQ requirement for jury foremen. He crashed this

entire trial almost single handedly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT

I don't understand why an implementation in Java or Objective-C cannot be

identical. Implementation has nothing to do with the language used does it.



If the implementation calls for four distinct steps and you do those four steps

in

Java or Objective-C then you've infringed the patent. haven't you? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT

Verdict thrown out due to jury misconduct or incompetence.

Judicial inquiry finds that it's not reasonable to expect

juries to understand such long complex instructions,and hard

limits are set for numbers of patents per case and

instruction lengths.



Subsequent investigation finds design and software patents

unsupported by common sense and they are banned.



Apple fined $3 billion for wasting everyone's time. Money to

be used to hire competent patent examiners and support prior

art research tools.



I can dream. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT

PJ,



Firewheels' last question misinterprets patent law even more egregiously than

you claim Hogan has.



Implementation and Language are different things. 'a=1+1' is the same

implementation as 'Add one and one, giving the result to the variable a', but

the language used is significantly different.



'a=1*3' and 'a=1+3' are different implementations, even though their language is

the same. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT