Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT

That is an easy one. They are so ignorant they think it is all easy. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:46 AM EDT

Just wondering why Samsung asked to look for inconsistencies. Not that there

aren't a lot of other reasons for their appeal, but If they didn't they could

have appealed based on this fact. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT

How in the world did an Apple "fan-boy" get the position of jury

foreman? They didn't need any instructions, an they obviously didn't let facts

get in the way of their decision, either... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT

This will certainly happen, Apple cannot create a monopoly

using patents, thats not how the system is designed to work.



So this may be a win, buts its a far bigger loss down the

road for Apple. Monopoly's aren't going to fly.



The Patents are total bogus, and the trial was a farce.



So yes.. this one is very far from over. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT

"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a

decision without needing the instructions."



The context of the quote is that they did not need an answer to their question

to figure out the inconsistency. It actually speaks to their competence, not the

other way

around. They were told the inconsistency in open court and then when they got

back to the jury room they decided to ask a question to clarify what they were

and then while waiting for an answer they figured it out on their own.



Now if they incorrectly corrected the inconsistency that would be something, but

I don't think they did. The Jury was lame enough without resorting to using

out-of-context distortions to get the point across. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT

I'm still glaring in disbelief that they found this phone

infringing.



<a href="http://androidheadlines.com/wp-

content/uploads/2010/07/thumb_550_ip4-vs-captivate.jpg

">This one</a>



Say what?!?!?!?! The story is pretty much the same with all

Galaxy S variants. None of them look even close to the iPhone

other than the international version. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: TiddlyPom on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT

<sarcasm>

Because everybody knows:



Microsoft: are allowed to have an effective monopoly on PCs

Apple: are being granted a virtual monopoly on smart phones (at least in the USA)



</sarcasm>



Who does this benefit - large incumbent USA corporations, not consumers and certainly not anybody outside the USA. How come Apple patents are always agreed with and Samsung patents are always ignored?



Yes, this stinks big style.



---

Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:14 PM EDT

I spotted the errors last night but did not know the legal

significance.



But, I work in tech as an android indie developer. it would

take me 3 days to go over that jury instruction form and

review evidence at this trial and I work in tech. I

seriously doubt that instructions were followed..just

compare it to the Google vs Oracle case about 35% less

stuff and they took what a full week to come to a verdict,

the Jury that is.



My question is why did not Samsung object to the jury member

with the patent on bias grounds? Sorry, do not know the

exact legal terminology..



Fred Grott, Android Developer



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT

Goof or just another civil case with special media attention?



The purpose of jury instructions is literally to expedite the jury deliberation.



Why is it shocking that they had a quick turnover?



A quick verdict is a sign that the burden of proof for the civil court, that it

be

clear and convincing, was met. This is not a criminal case where the jury must

have no reasonable doubt about their verdict.



That Samsung is questioning the verdict, duh. When you lose, you appeal. The

jury obviously found the evidence to meet the burden of proof. Procedural

error, like botched instructions and 'jury error' are two different things.

Samsung is basically suggesting they want to appeal the verdict, as is their

right. It is not clear yet whether they are questioning the jury instructions.

Rather, they are questioning the result of the trial itself and the amount of

damages awarded to the plaintiff.





"As you can see, you can ask for victory across the board or just on one

part of

what the jury decided."



-This makes it sound like the jury just randomly decided to throw money at

Apple. It's obvious that Samsung copied Apple.



Google search for 2005 samsung phone, 2006 samsung phone, 2007 samsung

phone, 2008 samsung phone, 2009 samsung phone, 2010 samsung phone,

2011 samsung phone, 2012 samsung phone and tell me if you dont see a rapid

evolution into Apple aesthetic. Tell me the Galaxy is nothing like the iPad.



Their internal memos boasted about how "easy" it would be to

"copy" the

iPhone. They were suppling Apple with parts and got tired of having a not-as-

nice office or similar cash reserves. They said "wow these widgets make

money,

lets make widgets." In the process they violated the intellectual property

of

Apple which is clearly represented by their similar design and functionality.



Yes, an appeal is due and the awards will probably be adjusted. The point of

this case was to set a precedence around the world that Apple will not tolerate



the copyright infringement of the technology and design that they envisioned

and created. Steve Jobs and thousands of Apple employees brought Apple out

from obscurity in the 1990's and saved their company. Why should other

companies get to jump off their shoulder's without compensating them?



(just a thought)



@cdisidro [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT

The trial covered so many issues and provided the parties so little time to

discuss each issue that the jury had a hopeless task. I don't see how they

could have a chance at actually forming any kind of understanding of that many

issues in that short a time without serious study.



Perhaps they just threw up their hands and started filling in the blanks just to

get out of there. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT

Not a farce. That is justice - US style. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT

"As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from

$1,051,855."



A bit of a goof here! One billion dollars damages, down from one million... :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT

To the text of the article, not to the jury's conclusions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT

I'm on the side that thinks the jury goofed but I can not lay the blame at their

feet. There is no way that this many complex questions could have been

effectively entertained by any collection of jurors available. It was an

impossible task from the start. I wish the court would have narrowed the scope

of this trial so that the remaining questions could have been given appropriate

interest and attention. Sadly, that did not happen.



3514v posting from public

terminal [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT

Amazing, pj, how your respect for juries and the system extends only as far as

their ability to choose a verdict you agree with. I've been impressed in the

past with the way you've written about the process and the people who work in

it, and the respect you've shown and the tone of your writing even when talking

about counsel for the side you oppose vehemently.



But now, jury rules against you, it's "O M G The jury", "slipshod

folks", and the lovely "farce".



I miss the fair-minded pj who clearly explained what happens in courtrooms and

why. We now seem to have a fangirl who reacts just like any of the rabid

commenters on the site, and that makes me sad.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:37 PM EDT

Some people ( in these forums) have suggested that Samsung's having to post a

bond of a billion+ is going to prevent their appeal. However, if Samsung does

not appeal they will still have to pay Apple the billion. So the appeal

generally doesn't cost them anything.



What bothers me is when a jury verdict becomes so high that a company doesn't

have the money to appeal? Does that mean that justice is on sale for those that

can raise beyond a companies ability to match?



Mouse the Lucky Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT

A quick calculation 2 days deliberation, 8 hours a day, 700 questions means the

jury spent approximately one and half minutes deliberating per question.



Even the OJ jury took longer, and they only had four or five questions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT

After all, playing cards are rectangular with rounded

corners! They stole Apple's design 300 years before Apple

invented it! They must be punished!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT

Apple is going to find itself falling apart just like Sony. That is

the original Sony that invented the walkman in the 80s not the

shell that exists today. I'm typing this on my Galaxy Nexus

with its beautiful OLED display; that takes some engineering to

manufacture. Squares with rounded corners.. bfd. I think Apple

will have a difficult time finding a parts supplier. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: miltonw on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT

In a new interview, one of the jurors said, "Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."



Isn't that a serious violation of jury instructions? Aren't they accepting and relying on "facts" not presented in court?



I am not a lawyer, but I think this is grounds for a mistrial right there! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT

They also decided the Nexus S 4G infringed the 381

(bounceback) patent, yet the Nexus S 4G runs stock Android,

which does not do bounceback. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT

The infringement was clear from the day one.



From theverge.com:



According to juror Manuel Ilagan, it was clear after the first day of

deliberations that the jury was mostly in agreement. Speaking to CNet, Ilagan

cited specific pieces of evidence that helped sway the decision Apple's way,

including internal Samsung emails. "The e-mails that went back and forth

from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate

into their devices was pretty damning to me," he explained. "It was

clear there

was infringement," he added. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT

Did the to sides present different evidence to the various courts? How can one

court say Samsung infringes and another determine that it is Apple in the

wrong?

Has anyone done up a chart to show how the rulings vary by court? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT

BBC is reporting that Samsung have stated they will appeal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT

SO unofficially we have signs of jurors not following the

judges instructions. What legal processes and filings can be

involved in such a case if it did in fact happen in this

case?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT

Anyone who wanted to buy a hard drive in the last year knows that prices have

skyrocketed because three of the four manufacturing plants of drive heads were

disabled in a Thialand flood.



I don't know how contracts for parts are made but I have to assume that things

like price of raw materials, exchange rate, unforseen problems, general increase

in the domain.



Could apple recieve a letter from Samsung, "due to unforseen setbacks in

litigation, we must now triple our prices for parts".



Could Apple be paying Apple?



BTW who owns the patents on the retina display? You know the spec that really

isn't a spec because Apple fandroids don't care about specs. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT

Commentfrom juror "because we had hard time believing there

was no prior art,

that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we

could

go on faster. It was bogging us down.



The jury didn't discuss prior art because it was bogging

them

down. Failing to discuss prior art? The whole foundation of

the case was patents which can be invalidated by prior art.

Was there any

instructions on prior art? Seems like Apple patents will be

declared invalid in appeals since prior art exists in most

of

their patents. Judgement overturned!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT

What puzzles me about the whole case was Samsung's seeming poor performance in defending itself. I'm puzzled why they didn't take the Google route and try and get some of the Apple patents re-examined and thus thrown out before the trial got to court. I'm also puzzled why they didn't pull out some of their own design patents to show prior art for a rectangle with rounded corners and no ornamentation. For example, how about patent D337569 filed in 1991 - add a button at one end and a speaker at the other and you have a modern smart phone. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT

How can you determine whether the patents are invalid if you skip determining

whether there was prior art? Determining if there was prior art is requisite to

determining validity. The jury verdict is null and void.



Samsung has an airtight case for rule 50(b) motion. There is no way this verdict

can stand. Let's see what Samsung puts up on this, and how the judge rules. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT

Some of the jurors had legal experience!?



They can't use any of that, can they? Their job was to determine the facts. Not

the legal matters. The only legal perspective they should have used was the

judge's. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT

Based on the comments, one juror has made, can Samsung appeal based on just

these statements?



"Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience." - jury

foreman walking jurors through patent process.



"I was vocal about the technical [issues], about the power controls,

because I know that stuff," and"I work on that."

- Ilagan, the interviewed juror.



"We're not the patent office. Its not even registered."

- Ilagan, para phasing the deliberations. Does this count as considering stuff

not in evidence?



"After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had

a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out

there before Apple."

- Ilagan . Shows the jury idea that there can be no prior art unless something

was brought to market. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT

Looks like all the things that were ruled in favor of Apple

had to do with Samsung's custom TouchWiz interface and its

similarity to Apple's design patents..



If Samsung updates all phones to stock Android 4.1 (Jelly

Bean) - which I understand works around all Apple patents

related to this - would they be in the clear for future phone

versions? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT

I think this case outcome would have been completely

different if Allsup was the judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT

135 comments posted already and no Off Topic threads? You guys need to take a

break! All work and no play and all that. Post anything off topic here if you

have anything to talk about other than these revelations about the jury

decision.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT

Is there any news to talk about besides the jury verdict?



Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your

comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the

convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks

sidebar.



Hint: Avoid a Geeklog bug that posts some links broken by putting a space on

either side of the text of the link, as in



<a href="http://example.com/foo"> See the spaces? </a>

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT

Some have claimed that declaring a patent exhausted and

declaring it not infringed is inconsistent.



I would say it is not. It is giving two reasons for the

same non-infringement conclusion. They say Apple had a

right to do something, and Apple didn't do it anyway, so

both those findings would have to be overturned to find that

Apple infringed that patent unlawfully.



That doesn't mean they are factually right on either point

of cause, but the jury has spoken and we peasants must obey.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:31 PM EDT

In case you are reading this with the setting to ignore Anonymous posts, here is a link to the Corrections Thread that was posted by an Anonymous but is already too active for me to simply say use this instead. If I did the link right it will override your Hide Anonymous setting and will appear: Corrections... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT

they awarded apple more money to the phones that look least like the iphone. Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668 Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356 Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558 Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146 clearly they just rushed through the judgment. the Galaxy S (presumably the GT-I9000) is the one that looks most like the iphone but got $0 in damages. The Galaxy S II epic got $100,326,988 but that phone along with the Galaxy S II for t-mobile which got almost as much but again it is virtually the same as the epic and looks the least like the iphone. Clearly we have a runaway irresponsible jury here. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT

Just think, billions of dollars created out of thin air by a captive group of

people earning less than minimum wage!



Steve would be proud.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:26 PM EDT

What a difference an "A" list Judge and Jury make:



A knowledgeable experienced Judge and a Diligent Jury.



---



From the Courtroom: Day 13 of Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No

Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 3Xs



http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120523125023818



---

Quote:

From our reporter in the courtroom:



Judge:



In his heart, you are respected, he said, and your verdict is respected.



I haven't had a jury in a civil case that has gone this long, "longest

civil trial" and you all have been a superb jury, and this country is a

great country, because of citizens like you who are willing to sacrifice and

come in as you have. Thanks them on behalf of country and Federal court.



He will then thank them individually in jury room.



---

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 Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT

OMG, PJ, it sure does. It is pretty clear that the foreman wanted to punish

Samsung for personal reasons and he convinced the rest of the jurors of his

"expertise" as a patent holder in order to control the ruling.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Not sure of yer conclusion.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:37 PM EDT

Despite the contrary winds, assume for a moment that the verdict holds.



Apple becomes the new King of the Mountain.



At least, in the U.S.A. If enough others decide that Apple didn't/doesn't win

fairly, other forces may come to bear.



Lessig points out, in his book _Code and the Laws of Cyberspace_, that law is

only one of at least four forces that act in the market. Infrastructure, social

attitudes, and other forces have as much influence.



Apple could win the law. But if Asia decides it doesn't like Apple, maybe

things could get a lot harder for Apple.



mexaly

(login trouble) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT

US Patent 7352953B1 is a total piece of garbage. It describes a normal computer

with video editing software using data storage techniques worked out in the

1960s. Not a single word of it is anything new. If that patent belongs to the

foreman, then he is guilty of fraud on the patent office and on the American

people.



No wonder he thinks junk patents are valid. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT

Bloomberg quotes the foreman:



When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered:

If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it? Hogan explained.

On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, a light bulb went on in my

head, he said. I thought, I need to do this for all of them.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-says-google-

e-mail-persuasive.html [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:00 PM EDT

So does this amount to Juror Misconduct? From Kinds of juror misconduct: There are many kinds of juror misconduct, but most of them fall into the following categories: ... 6. Improper mechanisms for arriving at a verdict:

Using a game of chance, such as a coin flip

Agreeing to ignore the law

Agreeing to a quotient verdict in a civil case; that is, arriving at a damages amount by taking a figure from each juror, and averaging them If the law says that the damage awarded by the jury must be only to compensate the damaged party and the jury is then using the damage awrd to punish the other party, then the jury would certainly have been "agreeing to ignore the law". [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT

I'm a little confused. When I first saw the verdict, I

thought finding that exhaustion covered Samsung's 3G patents

was probably reasonable, given things I had read previously

about what happened. But then I realized that the jury

found that Apple didn't even _infringe_ the 3G patents.

Could the jury really have known what it was doing? I don't

think Apple claimed that it didn't infringe the patents. I

just re-read what I could find of Apple's expert testimony,

from Hyong Kim, and it looked like he was just claiming the

patent was invalid. It's clear that the patent covers part

of the 3G standard. But the jury didn't find that the

patent was invalid, they just claimed non-infringement.

Could a properly informed jury really have found that? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT

Minority Report 2002



Uses his hands to control the display. Moving stuff around, flipping images,

zooming. This is on a huge display. With this prior art, it would be obvious

you would only use your fingers on a small display vs your whole hand.



This patent is a joke. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT



Source:



http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21400423/jury-

foreman-apple-v-samsung-verdict-message-that



Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had

a revelation on the first night of deliberations while he

watched television.

"I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this

were my patent, could I defend it?' " Hogan recalled. "Once

I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at

things."





Overall, Hogan said, he discounted the parade of high-paid

experts on both sides. "You can pay people to say what you

want them to say," he said.



"We felt like we were 100 percent fair," he said. "But we

wanted something more than a slap on the wrist."





Is this just me or did he A) substitute is own opinion

rather than evaluating the evidence and B) disregarded the

jury instructions on both finding of fact and damages. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT

When you borrow others inventions like phone camera, phone GPS, phone music

players, phone touchscreen, icon based layouts, and your big addition to the

world of patents is a black rectangle with rounded corners that steve jobs

probably saw when he watched 2001 a space oddessy and bounce ending...... you

should not only be ashamed, you should be boycotted until forced to compete on

merits not lawsuits.



If enough sites put boycott apple logo's up the top, linking to an article

describing why... it would freak apple out.. which is what needs to happen

anyway. shake them up and get them back to doing what they do best.. weird

marketing ads that sell stuff. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT



From the Verdict form:



-------

SAMSUNGS UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE



24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of

the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent

claims? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with

an N for no (for Apple).



Answer: No, no, no, etc. except iPad Touch.



25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung

patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples

infringement was willful?



Answer: Skipped.

----



Shouldn't they have answered question 25, at least as concerns the "iPad

Touch", whatever device that is? [ Reply to This | # ]



Another inconsistency? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:15 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:28 PM EDT

OK, I think I kinda understand why they disregarded

Samsung's standards-essential patents (patent exhaustion due

to Intel agreement).



But ... throwing out all Samsung's feature patents after

awarding ALL of Apple's utility and design patents??? A bit

fishy and heavily biased, if you ask me.



I mean, they *rejected* all of these Samsung feature patents

on all of Apple's devices:

- '711: Multi-tasking while playing music

- '460: Taking and e-mailing pictures using a scroll action

- '893: Switching between photos



and *accepted* all of these Apple utility and design patents

for over 90% of Samsung's phones they had to mark:

+ '163: enlarging documents through tapping

+ '381: Bounce back

+ '915: single-touch and double-touch

+ '087: Ornamental design (white)

+ '305: Rounded square icons

+ '677: Ornamental design (black)



Oh, so the jury basically said: "Hmmm, Samsung *cannot*

copy Apple's white and black colors ... but Apple *can* copy

the multi-tasking, scroll action, and switching thingies

from whoever they want!"



Puhleaassssee!!!!!!!



WSJ has a great graphic that helped me see this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044427040457761

2160843420578.html?

mod=googlenews_wsj#project%3DAPPLESAMSUNGVERDICT%26articleTa

bs%3Dinteractive

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT

How can the damages for the Fascinate smartphone (infringing three utility

patents, two design patents, and iPhone trade dress) be $100 per unit (23% of

sale price), while Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi (infringing the same three utility

patents, though no design or trade dress rights) be only $1.42 per unit (0.4%

sale price)?



Are these calculations right? I found them here:

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/08/billion-dollar-jury-verdict-blow-to.html [ Reply to This | # ]



Per unit damages are also grossly disproportionate - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT

Authored by: webster on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:31 AM EDT



It's a bad day for smartphoners. The price just went up and some day there may only be one brand. Samsung has to choke it down and move on. They must be glad they can afford to lose a billion. They can make it up in TV's. Settlement, if it was ever possible, just became more difficult. Apple wants it all. They probably prefer Lumias to Nexi. Time to move on to some second guessing in hindsight. The foreman was a patent owner. How did Samsung leave a patent owner on the Jury? He is favorable to patents, particularly his own. Let us hope that Samsung used their peremptory strikes on other patent owners, lawyers, or worse during voir dire. This had to be a calculated slip or they feared someone else worse. If this jury did everything right and more deliberately, they will still have pilloried Samsung. However, the more they talk, they more they give Samsung to throw at the judge. Their haste was sloppy and reflective of their strong sympathies for Apple. Howerver there is enough to criticise in their performance to make the judge have to decide. Their performance makes her evidentiary rulings seem to have hamstrung Samsung. If she has any qualms or sympathies, there is enough here, facts and law, to have her do it again. It is better for her record to order the retrial herself rather than have the Circuit order her to retry it. She can go either way. Sympathy will be the determining factor. Samsung will have to show some very strong precedent to get a new trial from her even if she wants to give it to them. If nothing else, a retrial won't have the same jury. If ever there was an example of a jury giving short shrift to a complicated case, this is it. The technically adept swept the others along according to published comments. They made errors, raced through dozens of issues and ingored instructions. It was a rush to judgment. They would probably done the same with a proper deliberation. Koh and or the Circuit will have to check out that "probably." So back to the drawing board for Samsung. Maybe they should cut a corner off their rectangular mobiles and call it a nook or a chink. Then no more confusion with iThings.

~webster~



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT

What's the word I'm looking for?



It's hard to believe that the Galaxy Ace, Intercept and Replenish don't do

pinch-to-zoom as per the findings of this jury. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:51 AM EDT

I think we now have plenty of evidence that the jury did not follow the jury

instructions and that if the judge does not declare a mistrial ( and I believe

she does not want to, but the higher ups are watching ) the appellate court

will.



It's funny, the more "common" people are barely speaking. It's the

most technical people who are in a hurry to talk to the press and reveal the

parts of the deliberation process that are most likely to cause a mistrial. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:57 AM EDT

When the judge was reading the jury instructions, she was making jokes about

jurors dieing from the boredom and talking standing breaks to make sure the

jurors don't fall asleep.



How much of her making light of the instructions led to the jury blowing part of

them off? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT

Ok so does this go up to the 9th Circuit or the CAFC?



Does it get split up with procedural issues going to the 9th circuit and the

CAFC getting the patentability issues?



If the CAFC gets it, how are they on procedural issues? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:44 AM EDT

This jury decision is NOTHING! You want a real travesty of justice? Try

acquitting a drunk driver of hit and run and manslaughter because he didn't know

he hit the person!



http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article879349.ece



Jurors are stupid. That's a given.



Samsung will appeal. If the Appeals court agrees the decision will be tossed.

However you're losing your composure.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:51 AM EDT

The striking thing about this mess to me is that people are NOT distinguishing

between two forms of copying. One is the slavish replication of a competitor's

product to steal a piece of their market. The other is the improvement of your

previous product by implementing your version of their software feature(s) on

your next product.



The first is actionable. The second is simply a good business practice. And

since Samsung implemented their version of certain Apple features in software

they (Samsung) are free to do three things :

1) Help kill software patents by invalidating Apple's patents;

2) Disable some parts of their software (perhaps with hackable patches that

would allow the awakening of a dormant feature :-) );

3) Conduct research into neater features.



MB94128



N.B. - I've been a techie for several decades. I own a Mac Mini w/ Snow Leopard

(10.6.8) and a ViewSonic gTablet. I have encountered several areas in OS X that

are inferior to Linux-D (SuSE/Mepis/etc.)*. I consider their increasing

web-linkage / cloud-happiness to be imbalanced at best and dangerous at worst.

Apple has a set of blinders on that makes sneaker-net and analog modem users

almost invisible. I suspect that I'm going to be migrating OFF of OS X by the

end of the year to one of the following : Mepis, ECS, Haiku, or Solaris. To

Apple - SST (Virginia's motto).



*E.g.'s :

Finder vs. Konqueror 3.x (bought a copy of PathFinder);

Safari vs. FireFox, etc.;

Integral burn vs. K3B (downloaded the "Burn" app);

Quicktime vs. VLC. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:54 AM EDT

Based on what's being printed in the main media1 from interviews with some of the Juror's, I can't help but think the Foreman guided the other Juror's such that a perversion of Justice occurred. The Foreman appears to have approached the situation by placing himself in Apple's shoes and wondering how he would defend the validity of his own patent. He then proceeded with his own deliberations such that "he was defending his own patent". As the saying goes: Someone who represents himself in a Court of Law has a fool for a client. Under such a situation, it comes as no surprise that the verdict was 100% in favor of Apple while Samsung's own patent claims ended up totally discounted. Determining validity of any patent is an extremely important part of the responsibility of a Jury when faced with a patent Lawsuit. While the Juror acknowledged they do not have the authority to grant the patent: So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. It's not even registered.' They still appear to have chosen to avoid determining whether or not at least one patent should even be considered valid: After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art." "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." It really leaves me wondering two things: 1: How much of what the Foreman viewed was based - not on the Jury Instructions and the Law as defined by the Judge - but on his own personal views with regards the validity of his own patent. and 2: How much he used that view to influence the rest of the Jury: Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. This keeps bringing me back to one thought surrounding those willing to patent Software: If you're willing to pervert the Law in order to acquire the patent - perhaps it's time to accept the reality your patent should not have been granted in the first place. 1: Recognizing the main media often only presents the most sensational side of the story and has no issues with presenting things in a way as to insinuate something without actually stating it. In short: Main Media can't be trusted to present sufficient facts to form one's own opinion that one can trust. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT

Cook's 'values' memo shows Apple has lost its soul ---

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: BitOBear on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:58 AM EDT

That was in the movie Johny Neumonic for (your choice of dieties') sake. He

spread his hands not fingers, but the screen was bigger, and virtual.



I dispair of any positive fiscal future for this country at this time. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lanser on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT

not sure of exact times but assuming 3x10 hour days and 700 questions that makes

2.6 minutes per question including time to read and record the response.

Seems to me that the jury really took their duties responsibly and gave serious

consideration to the evidence. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT

That's why I don't think this jury's ruling will stand, If you're hoping for another roll of the dice, it's worth remembering that as well as rejecting a lot of the 'rounded rectangle' stuff, this jury also threw out Samsung's claims that Apple had infringed their patents on: ...the integration of a mobile phone, digital camera and email into a single device; bookmarking a picture in an image gallery; and using an app while continuing to listen to music in the background. (BBC news - click-through to the patents). ...and also thew out Samsung's attempt to have a second bite of the cherry for their 3G-essential patents. Given the choice of having to work around Apple's patents or those, I know which I'd find least obstructive, and it's nice to know that you can rely on patent licenses obtained via third parties. ...and didn't Samsung have their chance to reject the patent-holder during jury selection? Maybe they thought he was worth a shot. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT

The Jury In The Apple-Samsung Case Deliberated Just 21 Hours



Quote: The very first vote taken immediately after proceedings concluded was already a 7-2 vote in favor of Apple. ---

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 Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM EDT

Intuitive gestures are something the average user would try when using a

device without no prior knowledge of how it works. They need to be obvious,

or they are not intuitive, and thus should be unpatentable by definition. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT

So some well-educated jurors agreed that Samsung was an obvious copycat.

Everyone except perhaps this website and rabid fanboys knew that the first time



they saw a Samsung device -- given that they even knew it was a Samsung from

a distance.



Now, you're piling on because the jury got some math wrong when they

attempted to bend over backwards for Samsung?



That's the problem with lawyers in general: they don't care for justice. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT

Apple's victory will mean MORE PHONE OPTIONS.



Samsung's copycat actions are the same as if Chevy copied Ferrari's 458 Spider -

making the same looking

car, down to the colors, shape, seats, steering wheel, dashboard, radio, tire

tread pattern, etc. All of

Chevy's models become variations of Ferrari's 458 Spider in appearance. But by a

Ferrari win in a lawsuit

against Chevy, Chevy is forced to create different looking cars - such as the

Corvette, Camaro, Volt,

Malibu, Cruz, Sonic and Spark. This causes consumers to have more options.



Because of Apple's win, there will be MORE PHONE OPTIONS. After all, Samsung

still wants to make billions

of dollars in the smartphone market. After all, Samsung still wants to sell more

smartphones than Apple.



Samsung will just have to make different looking smartphones. It actually has to

be more creative - like

MICROSOFT or even Sony.



That is how intellectual property protection - like copyrights, patents,

trademarks, etc. - is suppose to

work. It creates more incentive to differentiate, not copy. Car companies know

this intrinsically and

automatically create different looking cars with distinctive shapes and colors

so you know whether or not

you are driving a Chevy versus Ferrari versus Mercedes Benz versus Lexus. They

each have a different feel

and appearance. Samsung has to learn its lesson too. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT

Samsung, it's not the jury, it's your lawyers who screwed

up! :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT

Reading the comments so far calls to mind Judge Alsup's order early in Oracle v

Google for the parties to reduce the number of patents and claims in suit to a

number that could practicably be tried. This Judge Koh failed to do, and so

ended up with an impossible mess of a trial.



When this case went to the jury, I burned incense on the altar of the Jury Gods

in gratitude for their decision to spare me from being on this one. Their task

clearly was impossible, and the fault for that IMHO stems just as clearly from

Judge Koh's inability to to manage the case in a way that would allow a jury to

properly decide it.



Think about it. The unfortunate jury was handed a heaping plateful of patents,

each with multiple claims, whose validity they had to decide. With any

patents/claims that survived, they were to evaluate their applicability to

multiple features of dozens of products and, for each one found to infringe,

determine to the dollar how much financial harm had been done to the patent

holder. Each step of this process was to be governed by 109 pages of detailed

jury instructions, and based upon a paltry 50(?) hours of testimony and

thousands of pages of evidence that survived the best efforts of the world's

most high-powered lawyers to exclude on legal grounds anything that would

support the opposing side. Oh, and a jury form with 700 questions to be answered

yes-or-no on the lot. Yikes!



My combinatorial math is weak, but the cross product of the number of patent

claims, products and their features, available evidence, and applicable

instructions produces a mind-bogglingly huge number of discrete decisions that

would have to be reached by nine people in unanimity. Damage determinations are

piled on top of that.



I honestly don't see how this or any jury could reach a fully reasoned verdict

under those circumstances. Given that, my view is that the trial that Judge Koh

conducted can end only in a mistrial, as no rational verdict is possible.



-Russ

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT

So the jury messed up on one issue with respect to direct and indirect

infringement. The mistake affected damages by a whopping ~0.2%...big deal.

If you are familiar with juries, there are mistakes all the time. This alone is

not

going to be enough to reverse the jury.



Likewise, any crazy things that happened in the jury room during deliberations

are not going to going to change a thing. The Supreme Court has already ruled

comments by jurors cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict. (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_v._United_States) In the US, jury verdicts

are scared.



The only option Samsung really has a is a judgement as a matter of law (JMOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_as_a_matter_of_law). However, the

standard is very high for Samsung to succeed. Judge Koh would have to find

that no reasonable jury could have found for Apple. Now I know all the people

around here are going to think that the standard is easily met here. But, the

standard is going to be practically impossible to meet here where there are

plenty of experts for the jury to believe. For example, it will not be hard for



Judge Koh to rule that it was reasonable for the jury to believe Apple's experts



and not Samsung's. Essentially, for Samsung to win a JMOL, Apple would have

had to not met their burden on some points. Again, with all the experts here

presenting testimony, that is just not going to happen.



While it sucks for Samsung to pay $1-3billion here, this is not the end of

Samsung. In fact, Samsung has already changed their tablet and phone designs

and there are plenty of work arounds on the utility patent front (look at all

the

changes Google has already made). Honestly, I think Samsung actually got a

good deal for $1-3billion...they have gone from a minor player in the

smartphone market to leader in very little time. I also think that this

decision

will encourage innovation and give consumers more options as Samsung and

Google are going to have to think outside of the box to avoid Apple's stuff.



BTW, I own an Apple laptop but own an infringing Galaxy Tab 10.1 and a Nexus

4G. I cannot stand iOS devices. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jesse on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT

Change the bevel color from black to a black oak wood grain.



Personally, I prefer the look of red oak, but both provide a relatively dark

border.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT

I would be interested in seeing what question the foreman was asked and what his

answers were.



Based on his "patent" I believe he is a dishonest man.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT

Groklaw, thank you a ton for bringing this to the internets!



-on behalf of Reddit community. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT

Does anyone else think it is really unfair that each side

was only given 25 hours for testimony is a case that is

complex as this and has saw far and wide reaching effects?



It seems like this artificially created limitation really

hampered Samsung (along with other defenses they were not

able to put on). Was this just the judge basically saying

that this case was not important enough to allocate more

time?



Finally, not being in the legal business at all (with the

exception of being affected by verdicts such as this), is

this a common thing to do? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT

They are out in force.



Thank slashdot for their article now,

it really helps to attract the trolls

and get them out of here.





---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AH1 on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT

You have multiple members of the jury admitting that they went with their

feelings to make this ruling. You have a Jury foreman, who is obviously biased,

AND admissions that they ignored the jury instructions. Yet they were a

"duly empaneled jury of jury of their peers." It begs the question as

to what sanctions, if any, the judge can levy on jurors who fail to follow

instructions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:43 PM EDT

It seems to me the Foreman has admitted he deliberated before the end of

testimony and used his influence as an "expert" to sway the other

jurors.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



The Foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT The Foreman - Authored by: eric76 on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT

Phandroid has a pretty good take on this (citing Groklaw, though oddly). The approach taken is to point out: the jury was instructed to award damages for loss (that is, assuming that each samsung sale was a lost apple sale). But the networks these devices were offered on either still don't have iPhone, or didn't at the time that the device was introduced. See the article for details. Update: Complete device-by-device breakdown, jury instructions added (Phandroid.com) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT

Quote: Update: The following device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided

on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with

iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was

released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing

with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since

a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is

also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it

wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).





Total, removing the damages for the above devices ..$251,873,686. That is

$797,549,854 less than the initial damages.



---

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: calris74 on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT

I'm wondering what the knock-on consequences are going to be for Apple: Phone carriers in the US are not going to be happy that the more than 50% of the smartphones they sell could suddenly become unavailable

How many consumers will delay (or abandon) their decision to by a smartphone - more unhappiness for carriers

Component manufactures that make parts for Samsung are going to be annoyed - how many will backlash against apple (given that Samsung are a far bigger customer than Apple)

What is every other smartphone / tablet manufacture using 'square shape and round corners' going to do? I know Apple want to use this to legitimise an extortion compaign, but could Apple handle a war against every android vendor simultaneously if they decide to call Apple's bluff?

if they decide to call Apple's bluff? Samsung refusing to renew component contracts with Apple

Strengthening of the Boycott Apple campaign Things could get very ugly for Apple... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jheisey on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT

The jury gave us the Cliff Notes version of the verdict. They skipped the

tedious reading of the judge's instructions and deliberation of the evidence. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT

A writing mentor of mine said you had to care about something to write about it

well.



I think the same can be said of a patent jury...it has to care about patents to

render good verdicts. That implies a well-above average level of education,

precisely the people who can't afford minimum-wage jury service, and precisely

those that get tossed from juries for too much personal knowledge.



Start, then, by requiring patent juries to show some level of prior interest,

either through a 4-year technical degree, or a patent, or by demonstrating some

subject matter knowledge.



Follow up by allowing juries to cross-examine witnesses, instead of treating

them as passive receivers of exactly what the lawyers agree they should see.



Finally, remember that the goal of a jury is to arrive at truth...which is

typically lost in most judicial proceedings, and find ways for that to happen.

(Christenson) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT

When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it? Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, a light bulb went on in my head, he said. I thought, I need to do this for all of them. I'd think that this alone would show enough bias to get the jury verdict thrown out and at least a new jury handed the case. The jury isn't supposed to decide cases based on what'd benefit them in the future, they're supposed to decide based on what the law says and the evidence that was presented. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT

As upset as I am by this farce of a verdict I can't help but wonder if Samsung

and their attorneys are now regretting the strategy they used.



Now granted I was not there NOR do I know exactly what was excluded from being

used during the defense... but I would have spent more time on the Prior Art

part of this Design/Trade Dress BS showing things like the Windows Tablets (HP

Compaq TC1100 tablet PC - created and launched WELL before the Ipad (2003

in-fact). Google the pics! Looks like Apple copied them exactly. The LG phone,

and the Nokia I would have also would have shown the Kyocera 6035 (2001), Palm

Centro (Sure looks like a touch screen on a rectagle shaped phone with rounded

corners, Sony Clie Peg-TH55 very similar to the design the apple

"invented" and don't forget the Sony Clie PEG-VZ90 (1st Tablet??).

Circa 2004. Then move on to the other Prior Art of the Pinch to Zoom etc.

This much Prior Art would have overwhelming shown the jury that there was not

Trade Dress to infringe upon! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT

[Shares of Samsung Electronics Co.] opened 6.8% lower and at one point fell by as much as 7.7% to KRW1,177,000, the lowest intraday level in a month.



As of 0200 GMT the shares were down 6.8% at KRW1,189,000, wiping KRW12.7 trillion ($11.2 billion) off the company's market capitalization. marketwatch.com



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT

By all accounts, Samsung is ready to be even more combative in an intellectual property dispute already described by critics as pathologic. And its renewed aggression against Apple will start in Korea, much to the dismay of local Apple fans. Korea Times



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: friede on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:22 AM EDT

Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT

It's been some months since I designed my last smartphone...



Wait a minute, I've never designed a smartphone, so I might be wrong.



Anyway, it was the design of video codec chips that brought this to mind.

Whereas 'normal' complicated chips still have relatively simple signals passing

across their pins, the codec is different. It is more akin to a graphics chip

and contains a math machine that requires a software driver to form the complete

invention. I would expect 'mobile' communication chips to be in the same bag.



Under American patent law (hee, hee!) the software driver software does not have

to have a patent licence (Microsoft v. AT&T). Only the installation copy

needs a licence. Intel must licence the manufacture and sale of the chip,

itself, because it is a component specifically tied to the manufacture of the

patented invention. However, they can write and distribute any amount of

software to complete the invention without needing a patent licence. That

licence is needed by the entity that creates the installation media.



Thus, Intel's licence of the chip does not absolve Apple's obligation to licence

the manufactured invention in their phones even if they use Intel licensed chips

and the Intel provided driver software. By installing the driver software, they

are manufacturing the complete invention and not just using a licensed

component.



---

Regards

Ian Al

Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT

Apple Samsung jury speed doubts raised after punishment ruling ---

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 Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT

yup....the math is off....got $1,049,423,540

i ll be interested to c how this plays out....

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:26 AM EDT

When did mythtv first get released? This foreman's patent

appears to have been filed on Mar. 6, 2001. [ Reply to This | # ]



kickstarter - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:32 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT

Google/Motorola can actually develop and manufacture their

own hardware, and they are doing it in the U.S. which is a

huge politcal advantage btw. This will be a signal to them

to redouble their efforts in rolling out more of their own

Products. Something for which they are very well positioned.



Google has enormous software coverage and reach to every

possible consumer, if they tightly integrate that with their

own hardware, it will change the game, and it already is.



Google also has another very unique business Model ... they

do not have to make a profit on any hardware that they

market. And they have recently aquired a very large Patent

collection... it was Motorola who invented the mobile phone.

Google was also first to publically present a tablet

computer. Their cloud services, mapping, and social

networking is light years ahead of Apple and there is much

more in the pipeline.



Politcally & technically Apple would look sick going head to

head with Google. Google also appears to have very capable

lawyers as we saw in Google vs Oracle.



So lets see where all of this will take us...



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:07 AM EDT

What if people sent Samsung a letter of apology for Apple's behaviour with a

check for $24 (or whatever Apple's extortion rate is for the Samsung's products

we've chosen over Apple's). It would do two things... Help keep Samsung from

taking such a big hit, and show Apple that people (even some of their own

customers) are ashamed of their anti-competitive behaviour.



Would make for some interesting PR if enough people got involved. :)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jheisey on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT

This large and and seemingly unfair money judgement against Samsung in a U.S.

court is the kind of thing that could initiate a trade war between the U.S. and

South Korea, and also could affect political relations between the two

countries. Thus it is likely that political influence will most likely effect

the final outcome of this case. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT

I wouldn't usually cite Phandroid as a source of anything,

but I think it is worth bringing up the point that a

significant amount of the damages were awarded to phones

that are/were exclusive to carriers that did not carry an

iPhone.



http://phandroid.com/2012/08/26/samsung-planning-various-

arguments-for-its-appeal/



I think it is safe to assume that minuscule portion of the

US population buys a *new* smartphone off-contract ($350-

$750) and activates it on a network it wasn't marketed for.



People that DO bring their smartphones to other networks

(e.g. iPhones to T-Mobile) are doing so when their contracts

expire, bringing their *old* phones. Or 2nd-hand & older

models, which have greatly diminished value.



Were any figures released regarding off-contract sales

during the trial?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT

This is an interesting aspect I haven't seen mentioned here



From http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-

samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/



"Hyong Shin Park has said that Samsung phones were inspired

by a "bowl of water" and not the iPhone. Apple argues that

Park's testimony isn't relevant."



"Park was expected to detail the evolution of the F700

project, including how the company went about choosing which

features to include. That's a key point in this trial, with

Apple accusing Samsung of copying the look and feel of the

iPhone. Samsung has argued that the choice of shapes such as

the rounded corners or rectangular shape of the device have

nothing to do with design and everything to do with

functionality."



"Samsung said in a document filed Friday that Park's design

patent dates back to December 2006, before Apple launched

its first iPhone."





That Koh is strange. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT

From http://www.osnews.com/thread?486625



"The rubber-band patent was filed in December 2007. Compiz, the Linux

compositing manager, has such an effect. Compiz was released at the beginning of

2006, so almost two years before."



I'm not sure which of the Compiz effects they refer to but I guess it cannot be

too far off. Still trying to find it.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT

From http://web.archive.org/web/20040825110210/http://homep age.mac.com/sgundrum/ted2004/Personal37.html



(http: //web.archive.org/web/20040825110210/http://homepage.mac.com/sgundrum/ted2004/Pe rsonal37.html)



DiamondTouch Simultaneous multi-user input device. Put another way, great fun!



The Wired Magazine reception is not only a great party, but also a showcase for new and entertaining technology. This year there was a live demo of Mitsutishi Research Labs "DiamondTouch" technology. Simply put, a multi-user touch pad or screen that let's a group of people control an application. In this case, we were playing wonderful new computer games.



Here's more information about the technology from the Mitsubishi web site. The video is worth a 1000 words.



- Steve





DiamondTouch Technology:



DiamondTouch is a simultaneous, multi-user, touch sensitive input device developed at MERL. Not only can it detect multiple, simultaneous touch events, but it can also identify which user is touching where. This unique ability has made DiamondTouch a very useful device in the human-computer interface research community. Work on the DiamondTouch hardware has now produced two prototype versions, the DT88 and the DT107. Both are meant to be used with any of Mitsubishis line of video or computer data projectors.



Background & Objective: DiamondTouch was first created in 2001 as an experimental multiuser interface device. Mitsubishi has been recognized for this technology, and are creating commercially viable products by seeding select university groups with prototype units.



[...]



Let us agree that it is established that Steve Jobs not only knew of and liked the Mitsubishi DiamondTouch.







---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT

People seem to forget, that this ruling is only good in America, it has not effect on Samsung here in Canada...unless of course Apple Canada brings a suit against Samsung Canada to court. But, they won't find a judge like Koh here in Canada.



Also, this was posted to MaximumPC.com, and I have to agree with the poster:



"Samsung had no chance with the jury because of Apple's lapdog named Lucy Koh; Samsung needs -- will? -- appeal this, and they need to do so in front of a true impartial judge which Koh was not!" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT

There's a simple solution for all of this. Like most simple

solutions, it's complete and total overkill. The base is

this: render all patents nontransferable. Basically, the

original patent holder is the only one who can hold that

patent. If it's in the name of a company and the company

closes down, that patent is expired - meaning no one else

can patent it and there are no restrictions on use. To make

sure everyone starts on the same page, take all patents that

have been transferred and render them expired. Will it be a

massive tech free-for-all? For about 5-10 years, yup. It

would also put an end to all of these ridiculous patent-

hording cold wars. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT

If there is some basis to the idea that certain phones

should be discounted because they were available on networks

where the iPhone wasn't even offered, then there is

something to be said of the fact that many networks(Sprint,

T-Mobile) weren't even capable of carrying the iPhone for

the longest time(2012?) due to incompatible spectrum. IIRC,

T-Mobile and Sprint both run on 1700 or 2100, and the iPhone

isn't or still isn't available for that. Not to mention

that the iPhone wasn't compatible on CDMA for the longest

time, and that is the network Verizon uses.



That, plus you have to look at network coverage for the

Samsung phones that apparently stole market share and money

away from Apple. They're not all nationwide, nor do they

have the same reach AT&T or Verizon do. Did the jury do

that when they awarded damages? Unlikely, because we're

getting pretty complicated here.



I don't see how Apple should be able to successfully argue

that all those phones should result in damages being paid

out. If the iPhone wasn't available on Sprint, whose fault

is that if the people going to Sprint for a phone buy a

Samsung product? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT

My absolutely favorite part is when one of the jurors plainly admits:



We were told prior art was very important, and that prior art would be in favor

of Samsung. We thought, of course there's prior art. It would be absolutely

ridiculous for there to be no prior art. Nobody in their right mind will think

that there's no prior art. So we skipped it (and wrote: no prior art, f*k em?)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT