decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj
Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:39 PM EDT

With a breathtaking immediacy, we see the post-verdict maneuvers begin in the Apple v. Samsung case. Samsung has now filed with the District Court a motion [PDF] to immediately lift the preliminary injunction on the one device the jury didn't find infringing which had been blocked by a June 26 order [PDF] enjoining Samsung from "making, using, offering to sell, selling in the United States, or importing into the United States the Galaxy Tab 10.1."

The jury didn't know that, of course, or didn't connect the dots on this either. For whatever reason seemed good to them, they didn't find the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringing Apple's 'D889 patent. And that was the only one that the District Court judge and the Federal Circuit thought [PDF] should be blocked by an injunction pending the outcome of the trial. Neither the judge nor the Federal Circuit seemed to think the other Apple patents were likely to prevail, but with this jury, the Alice in Wonderland of juries as I think of them, it was the opposite.

None of it makes sense in the normal world, not even in the very peculiar patent universe. As you know, I think software patents should never be granted, and I find the broadening of trade dress protection that this case represents appalling. But even if I thought they should be granted, this jury's verdict makes little sense. But lawyers deal with what is, not what ought to be, or how it's supposed to go, and so they work with what they have. This will go on for quite a while, as each side tries for an adjustment in its favor.

Samsung asks for the matter to be handled expeditiously:

A shortened briefing schedule on Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve is necessary and in the interest of justice because the jury verdict expressly rejects the predicate upon which the preliminary injunction was entered—that Apple was likely to prove that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes the D’889 patent. The normal briefing and hearing schedule would unnecessarily prolong the wrongful injunction to which Samsung already has been subject for two months. The prompt dissolution of the preliminary injunction is also critical to Samsung’s business relationships with carriers and customers, which has been harmed during the period in which the injunction has been in effect.
That's just the opening shot, I presume. Interestingly, Judge Koh had not thought that any preliminary injunction should issue originally, as you can see in the Federal Circuit's opinion, on page 13:
The court nonetheless concluded that a preliminary injunction should be denied because there were substantial questions about the validity of the D'889 patent, and therefore Apple was unable to show that it would likely succeed on the merits.... it concluded that Samsung had raised a substantial question about whether the patented design would have been obvious in light of a combination of several prior art references.
It was only after that ruling by the Federal Circuit overruling her decision, after Apple appealed, that Judge Koh issued the preliminary injunction immediately afterward. So she had it right the first time.

We now have all the Apple patents, attached to its complaint, on our Apple v. Samsung Timeline page, #1 on the docket list. And I've marked what each one is, so they are easy to find, if you want to track the patent this is about.

Here are the filings:

1935 - Filed & Entered: 08/26/2012
ORDER RE: AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS re 880, 906. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 8/26/2012.(psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2012).

1936 - Filed & Entered: 08/26/2012
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of MOTION To Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Responses due by 8/28/2012. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/26/2012) Modified text on 8/27/2012 to conform with caption of document (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1937 Filed & Entered: 08/26/2012
MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing re [1936] Samsung's Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Victoria Maroulis in Support of Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time, # (2) Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/26/2012) Modified on 8/27/2012 linking entry to document #1936 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1938 - Filed & Entered: 08/27/2012
RESPONSE (re [1937] MOTION to Shorten Time for Samsung's Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction ) Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Shorten Time On Motion To Dissolve Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

1939 - Filed & Entered: 08/27/2012
NOTICE by Apple Inc. Apple's Certificate Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

1940 Filed & Entered: 08/27/2012
RESPONSE to Apples Response To The Courts August 24 Order Regarding Post-Trial Preliminary Injunction Filings by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

The Apple filing about the appeal is this: Apple had filed already with the Federal Circuit regarding the court's unsealing order, back on August 17. It now argues in its brief [PDF, 95 pages] that "The Need To Protect Apple’s Critical Trade Secrets Overcomes The Public’s Minimal Interest In These Documents" which it argues Judge Lucy Koh overstepped her authority by ordering released.

Trust me, our interest is keen, not minimal. Kidding. They mean their need to keep them secret outweighs our panting for them. This is more fighting about Reuters' moves to unseal things that Apple doesn't want seen in public, as it explains:

The documents that Apple sought to seal fell within four narrow categories of trade secrets: (i) detailed financial information; (ii) non-public source code and schematics; (iii) proprietary market research reports; and (iv) confidential licensing information.
That last is what I'm drooling over. I want to know how much Samsung paid Microsoft allegedly for patents in connection with Android. By the way, Kathleen M. Sullivan is listed as principal counsel for Cross-Appellants Samsung.

And there is something else I'm curious about. We know now that originally Apple offered to license its patents to Samsung at $24 per smartphone and $32 per tablet, according to the Reuters account, which adds that at that price, it would "effectively wipe out more than half of Samsung's margins on any phone priced less than $450." What about Microsoft? What is it paying? Is it the same prices they offered to license them to Samsung? Or was that high price just for Samsung? If there is a significant difference, and Microsoft is paying a lot less, for example, what might we conclude?

So ... Apple would like copyright, trademark, patent, design patent, trade dress *and* trade secret protection. Heavens. How fragile thou art, Apple, if you need all that to survive in the marketplace.

Isn't that the true message of all this, that the proprietary side of the market can't win on an even playing field, so they are throwing tacks in the way of Android, which is eating their lunch with customers? They are trying to win in the courts by hobbling Android. People love Android. Why wouldn't they? You can breathe.

People do like freedom, you know. It's like grass. Even if you lay down concrete on top of it, trying to replace it, it keeps pushing upward, trying to reach the light. You've seen cracks in the sidewalk with grass peeking through? It's how we humans are wired, too. We like to breathe free. That's not just a US value; it's a universal human desire, and the proprietary side doesn't want us to have it. They'd like to dictate what we are allowed to buy and what we are allowed to do with what we buy.

Only Apple can have a couple of rows of brightly colored icons? Only Apple can pinch to zoom? Only Apple can have rectangular devices with rounded corners, bezels, and a flat screen surface? Who are they to dictate such terms to the world? That is way too basic and too broad. They are the only ones allowed to fulfill the market demand?

It was fine with me if they wish to dictate to their users, as long as the users don't mind. But when they start to dictate to Android, to people who don't want an Apple product but do want full functionality, exactly what functionality it is allowed to have, what look it must not have, it's an outgrowth of the idea that only the IP owner's rights matter. But customers have rights too. Or we used to. And nobody is paying attention to that side of the issue, and when you think about it, that is what makes IP law Constitutional, that it's allegedly for the benefit of the public, with the goal of encouraging innovation for our benefit, not so Apple can make money from a monopoly on tablets. That is precisely the opposite of the law's purpose, when it starts to inhibit innovation, which is, as any artist will tell you, including Steve Jobs, a process inevitably of using and building on the ideas of others.

So, here's a question. If IP laws work against innovation now, against the public interest, are they still Constitutional?

Here's Samsung's Motion and Memorandum in support of its motion, as text:

****************

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
[email]
[address, telephone, fax]

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[email]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[email]
[address, telephone, fax]

Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.

_________

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) shall and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, to shorten time for briefing on its accompanying Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction.

This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum, and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by the Court.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Samsung seeks to shorten time for briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction.

DATED: August 26, 2012

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

MEMORANDUM

On June 26, 2012, the Court issued an Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, enjoining Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, selling in the United States, or importing into the United States the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (“the Order”). In light of the jury verdict and final judgment entered on August 24, 2012, Samsung has filed a Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction (“Motion to Dissolve”). In accordance with Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, Samsung moves the Court to shorten time for the briefing and hearing schedule for its concurrently filed Motion to Dissolve. Specifically, Samsung requests that:
1. Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve be filed on or before Tuesday, August 28, 2012;

2. Samsung waives its right to file a reply brief; and

3. The Court decides Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve without oral argument.

A shortened briefing schedule on Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve is necessary and in the interest of justice because the jury verdict expressly rejects the predicate upon which the preliminary injunction was entered—that Apple was likely to prove that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes the D’889 patent. The normal briefing and hearing schedule would unnecessarily prolong the wrongful injunction to which Samsung already has been subject for two months. The prompt dissolution of the preliminary injunction is also critical to Samsung’s business relationships with carriers and customers, which has been harmed during the period in which the injunction has been in effect.

Expedited resolution of Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve is also warranted in light of Samsung’s pending appeal of the June 26, 2012 preliminary injunction. Samsung’s opening brief in the Federal Circuit is due next Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Dissolving the preliminary injunction (or issuing an indicative ruling pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1) prior to that date would

2

allow Samsung to withdraw its appeal before having to file a merits brief on an appeal that will soon become moot.

Counsel for Samsung contacted Apple’s counsel in an effort to reach a stipulation to the briefing and hearing schedule outlined above. Apple did not agree to Samsung’s proposed schedule. See Declaration of Victoria Maroulis In Support of Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing, filed concurrently.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant Samsung’s Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve.

DATED: August 26, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

3


  


Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj | 209 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Cynical view
Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
A cynical view might be that the need for speed is to get the injunction lifted

before attempting to get the jury's verdict thrown out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
Awesome, I can't wait to buy one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1
Authored by: webster on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
.

Apple will have a hard time opposing this. They will have
to
criticize the jury that gave them a billion.

The jury makes Koh wrong for granting the injunction. So
what does Koh think of the jury's work? Remember no matter
what, all messes are hers.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
Some people use the posts title very effectively to
show the correction succinctly.

Thnx -> Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

"3. The Court decides Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve without oral argument."
Authored by: webster on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
.

This is the real request. The Court should lift the
injunction almost sua sponte since its premise has been
eliminated by the jury.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Misleading and wrong...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
"Neither the judge nor the Federal Circuit seemed to think the other Apple

patents were likely to prevail . . ."

That statement is wrong and misleading. Apple didn't seek a preliminary
injunction on all of the patents in the suit; only the design patents and the
'381
patent (the "bounce" patent).

Even with respect to these patents, the court of appeals denied the preliminary

injunction (PI) based on other factors. In determining whether to grant a PI,
several factors are considered. In addition to the likelihood of prevailing,
whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm, public interest, and balance of
hardships are all considered. For the three patents that the appeals court
denied the PI, the irreparable harm factor was the deciding factor. The court
of
appeals never stated that Apple was unlikely to prevail and actually overturned

the district court's finding that two of the design patents were likely
invalid.

Its statements like these with the Alice in Wonderland jab that show your clear

bias, which is fine as you are entitled to your opinion. However, I liked it
here
more when you just reported the facts. I guess I really just wish I would stop

seeing other people quote you as an unbiased authority.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You've heard it here before
Authored by: sysadmin on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
If there has ever been an example of why you don't want to go in front of a
jury, this is it.

I personally believe this is the worst jury verdict I've ever seen, and I hope
it does NOT stand. Particularly because I have NO FAITH in our legislative
branch to fix the fundamental problem (software patents).

---
Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
Make links clickable. Read the important stuff on the Post a Comment page.
On-topic comments will be ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT
Please make the title of your post the same as the News Pick you are commenting
on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT
What are the ways that a nullified verdict might play out?

If Samsung gets a new jury, do they get the reversal of small errors, as well as
large ones?

What about objections sustained in the first trial? Is there an expectation
that the same evidence cannot be proffered in the new trial?

If the judge tries to rule from the bench, in lieu of a usable verdict, can
Samsung demand a new jury?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Verdict makes sense ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
And is easy to understand even the speed of it.

Verdict's basis:
1. USPTO are the experts and every patent from them is valid and anything
unregistered is not.
2. Samsung is guilty.
3. A clear message needs to be sent that IP is protected.

Part of the patent application process is the disclosure of the prior art which

the USPTO considers when approving the patent. In theory that means the
USPTO has checked all prior art and determined whether the patent
application is worthy of a patent. So, any discussion on prior art can be
skipped as the experts have already examined them.

Holding both parties as having infringed each other's patents is not a
"clear"
message. Besides Apple is a third party beneficiary through Intel on
Samsung's patents.

Samsung is guilty as there were emails about being to similar and their
experts are working through interpreters with a different cultural bias in terms

of body communication so that the simple literal answers to the questions
seem "dodgy".

Since the bulk of the testimony or maybe the most memorable was on bezels,
that was the criterion that was used to decide whether a phone was infringing
or not.

Since the iPad trade dress was unregistered, the Samsung Galaxy Tab wasn't
infringing by looking too similar.

See, nice and easy while being quick.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj
Authored by: Inevitable on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
I keep hearing how important the jury selection process is. For the entire jury
to have made up their mind on DAY ONE is proof of that. Wow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

'889 design patent - what about the bond posted by Apple?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
In order to get the injunction, Apple had to post a bond, 2.6 million to
compensate Samgsung in case they did not prevail or the injunction was turned
over by a higher court. What happens to the bond?

And the '889 patent was the muttiest dog of the design patents, a piece of glass
with a frame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

minor mistakes? they didn't even give a verdict on the right case.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
Deciding on an overall winner and then retrofitting answers
to 700 questions to fit that winner decision is not a minor
mistake.

Failing to read the jury instructions is not a minor
mistake.

Dishing out punishment rather than compensation because you
haven't read the instructions is not a minor mistake.

Reading comments from the jurors has been eye opening. It
looks like the more they say, the better Samsung's appeal
looks.

A jury must try the case given to it, not make up its own.
It is clear that this jury did not try the case given to it,
and it's very hard to see how it can stand without such
heavy alteration that it starts to look like a mistrial.

Ianal

[ Reply to This | # ]

expeditious
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT
This should be handled as expeditiously as
Apple's moves for an injunction against the
infringing Samsung devices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Video of interview with jury foreman
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:53 PM EDT

Have you seen this yet? In this interview, the jury foreman is backtracking on previous interviews. I don't like this guy. He thinks he knows it all, but clearly he doesn't.

So many things to comment on, but I will limit my comment to one thing that caught my attention. The guy was saying why prior art didn't invalidate the bounce patent... He said he realized that Apple's code could not run on the processor that ran the prior art device. Imagine that! ...but the patent is on the algorithm - not the source code!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kickstarter to file anti-trust or class-action against Apple & Microsoft....
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT
... for anti-competitive behavior and patent abuse! I'm in!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bezel?
Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM EDT
You know I went and looked up the word Bezel, and you really simply can not have
a smart phone without one.

Bezel is the name for the rim and overlapping cover around a CRT screen or
mounted gem. Now the LCD screen isn't technically a CRT, but anything you use to
surround glass isn't necessarily a "window frame".

So the act of not exposing the glass edge of the glass plate that is the front
of the screen is part and parcel of this "design" element.

Absent a bezel, exposed glass will chip on reasonable contact with another,
harder object. Just ask anybody who has had one of those un-framed glass coffee
tables in a house with children.

In short, "doesn't want phone to break on slightest contact with a solid
object" now means "owned by or licensed from apple"?

That cannot be right, leastwise in a sane world...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Bezel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM EDT
  • Bezel? - Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:47 AM EDT
    • Bezel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Finding Hogan's patent invalid.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:44 PM EDT
Listening to that interview it sounds like Hogan has
Gene Quin's hand up his behind. Not a any sort of kinky, but
in an Edgar Bergan/Charlie McCarthy way. ( I say this
because there are some degenerates out there who will reply
otherwise. )

I've heard many people suggest here that his patent is
bogus. If that's the case then someone who is familiar
enough with challenging patents might want to take a run at
it. I'm not saying this to be vindictive but because I think
that when his patent is invalidated he will realize that he
does not know as much about patents as he thinks he does.
Also should he ever serve on a patent case again ( a real
possibility given where he lives ), other jurors will not
treat him like an expert knowing he filed a bogus patent.




[ Reply to This | # ]

Interview point one different CPU's.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT
Very early in the interview the guy says that a patent did
not invalidate the patent because it was for a machine that
used a different CPU.

So we progress to the point where instead of taking an
existing process and adding "on a computer" or "on the
internet" now all you have to do is change the CPU.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interview point two: You don't have to match all claims.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
Later in the interview I hear Hogan make another claim ( not
in the patent sense).

He says that you don't have to match all the individual
claims in a patent. But you have to match all the claims in a
patent in a sort of gestalt way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Samsung not infringe because it uses a different processor?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
If the prior art is invalid because it runs on a different
processor, then do Samsung tablets not infringe because they
use a different processor then iPads.

While they all use ARM based processors I believe Apple uses
their own proprietary version. Maybe someone with more
tablet background can better clue us in on this.

With the possible exception of the newsest Apple models,
none run a quad core processor. So if Samsung upgrades all
their models to Quad-core will they stop infringing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

When is the next Court hearing.?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:22 AM EDT
Given the things that are coming out about jury
deliberations, I think it will be a doosy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So ... Does Samsung get compensated?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:45 AM EDT
Does Samsung get compensated for the damage caused to them by the injunction?
Perhaps the judge should add on some gratuitous punishment to that as well like
the jury did - perhaps help even the scales of justice a bit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT
This case (just like SCO's cases btw) as well as many comments undoubtedly helped to unveil some flaws of the US legal system, at least in Civil Law.
By coincidence I stumbled across an article in The Atlantic by an American law professor.
While I'm unable to ascertain which system works better, I'm pretty sure that Continental European legal practice prevents law firms from extracting such obscene sums of money from the real economy as in the US.
European civil lawsuits may be dull and boring, but at least the systems seem to be more rational and less expensive than the US-style (and increasingly UK- and AUS-style) suits.
IMHO, the legal system doesn't exist to make a few people (lawyers) super-rich, but to make sure that justice prevails, however difficult this turns out to be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who are [Apple] to dictate such terms to the world?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:32 AM EDT
I think we need to remember that the US Courts (for now) do not have
jurisdiction outside of the US.

The decision in Apple vs Samsung is not binding on other jurisdictions, eg. UK.

And while, on the subject, I would like to clarify the FUD that's been flying
around about the German Court's "EU-wide" injunction. Contrary to the
popular press, Germany - like the US - like any other sovereign nation - has
limits on its jurisdiction. German Courts cannot impose EU-wide injunctions.
Their power is limited to Germany and its territories. A German Court can,
however, refer an application to the ECJ (European Court of Justice). The
decisions of the ECJ are binding on all member states of the EU. The ECJ has
not yet heard ANY application by Apple for an injunction against Samsung.

I can still buy any Samsung device from a retailer here in the UK.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Teardown
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
This link is to images from a teardown of the iPhone.

The case size is determined by the board size required to fit the components, battery dimensions and the board plus battery plus display thickness. The screen size is determined by functionality, cost, pixel density and other display device aspects.

The obvious placing for the display is centrally along both the vertical and horizontal axis. The board dimensions need to be arranged to provide the physical button. The obvious location for the button is along the lower edge, close to the natural resting place of left or right thumb. The general dimensions of the bezel are entirely the functional need to cater for the electronics and display within and the functionality of that button.

The only design freedom is whether to provide a wider bezel along the bottom to cater for the button or to provide an equal bezel, top and bottom.

Without looking at an iPhone or an iPad image, what bezel design decision taken by Apple leads to the unmistakable trade dress for all Apple mobile products? Do Apple use the design patent encompassing rounded corners for any of their mobile products? Do Samsung employ the Apple design patent for any of the accused devices?

The rounded corners are not functionally required by the printed circuit board or the display dimensions. Both the PCB and the display are essentially rectangular for manufacturing and cost reasons. Extra height is required in the case beyond the PCB and the display in order to cater for the rounded corners of the case. The amount of extra height is a tradeoff between the overall height of the device (long mobile phones are inconvenient - a functionality issue) and the radius of the rounding.

All phone corners have to be rounded. The extent of the rounding of the iPhone corners is only partly a style issue and is mainly a tradeoff between the dimensional and manufacturing demands of the 'phone.

Where the majority of the 'buttons' on a phone are to be provided by icons on a touch-screen, the appearance of the resulting phone is largely driven by user functionality and the choices of components for the phone. Only a tiny part of the appearance is determined by trade dress (mainly the company name) and almost all is determined by engineering decisions such as the case materials and finish and the components used.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What patent is he talking about?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT
When I heard the interview I presumed that Hogan was talking
about an Apple patent, from the context, not knowing which
patent was which.

Then I looked up the 460 patent, now it seems clear that he
either confused patents or he is very confused about what
invalidate, infringe and prior art mean.

In either case though, the argument of a different processor
just doesn't hold water.

My gut says that he misidentified patents because he says it
was the first patent. The general feel of the case is that
the Apple claims of infringment carried the most weight. So
I would look at Apple patents first.



[ Reply to This | # ]

How can the comments made by members of the jury be used?
Authored by: TheMole on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT
Post-verdict, how can the reports in the media of comments by members of the
jury (which seem to call into question the validity of their decision-making
process) be used by the judge and any subsequent appeals court?

Can Samsung's attorney present a motion asking for a verdict to be overturned
with quotes from the media reports of jury comments? Whilst we interested
onlookers might be outraged at some of the alleged flawed thinking displayed by
the jury foreman, will the judge and any appeal court consider it? Or does the
Court simply consider whether the verdict is reasonable based on the evidence
presented and maybe on such factors as the speed of the delivery of the verdict
in such a complex case?

I ask because over here in the UK jury deliberations are sacrosanct - it's a
criminal offence to even approach a jury member, let along identify them and
publish their comments about a case!

RA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung Moves to Quickly Lift Preliminary Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
<i>Interestingly, Judge Koh had not thought that any preliminary
injunction should issue originally...</i>

Hopefully this at least bodes well that Apple's inevitable Rule 50 motion for
JMOL that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes too will be denied.

Is it likely that either side will get any Rule 50 joy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has Apple outdone SCO's business model?
Authored by: be2weenthelines on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
SCO seemed to think it was a good business model to sue your customers. Apple
seems to think its a good idea to sue one of their major suppliers (since
Samsung makes a significant chunk of the electronic components of, say, the
iPhone).

How hard will this come back to bite them? Maybe not so hard because they have
such a huge markup who cares if they have to pay more for the components? Maybe
really hard...I suspect Samsung will have a long memory over the way they have
been portrayed by Apple as part of this lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look and feel
Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT
This reminds of all the different brands of block chocolates in the shop. They
are all basically the same size, are rectangular in shape and are all
differentiated on the outside by different colours, the brand name and flavour
written on the packaging. (box) When they are taken out of the packaging they
all look the same with the approximately the same size of small blocks (icons).
There may be more or less depending on the overall size of the original package
size (7" or 10") and may have the manufacturer name embossed in the
top of each block (Samsung). I don't see the chocolate manufacturers suing over
the shape and number of blocks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Re:Look and feel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT
  • Look and feel - Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
  • Look and feel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
Tin Foil Hat Time
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT
"Or was that high price just for Samsung? If there is a significant
difference, and Microsoft is paying a lot less, for example, what might we
conclude?"

And you talk about an Alice in Wonderland jury....So Apple and Microsoft collude
to take out Android? Really? You do know that HTC pays Microsoft a fee for
each Android phone. It's not hard to figure out what Samsung paid Microsoft.

And if all this is unfair to Android, then why doesn't Google do something about
it. Why doesn't Google stand up to Microsoft and say, we do not infringe on
your patents. Why doesn't Google take Microsoft to court and prove once and for
all that Android does infringe on Microsoft patents?

"Isn't that the true message of all this, that the proprietary side of the
market can't win on an even playing field, so they are throwing tacks in the way
of Android, which is eating their lunch with customers? They are trying to win
in the courts by hobbling Android. People love Android. Why wouldn't they? You
can breathe. "

Yeah Apple's sales numbers were in toilet because of Android. Apple just
couldn't compete against Android...I mean the stylus wow - what a stroke of
genius - how '90s of Samsung....what color is the sky in your world.....

FYI You do realize that telecoms such as Verizon and AT&T lock down their
phones. The so called freedom you talk about does not exist from Verizon and
AT&T. The reality is these devices are no more free than Apple's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can courts take note of what jurors say after being discharged?
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT

There's been much about the jury in this case saying they didn't "need" the instructions to reach the verdict, and also about the jury in the Novell-Microsoft case hanging on a single juror.

I have a question. It seems that the interaction of the court with the jury is deliberately limited with a very strong straitjacket. Courts only ask the juries to listen carefully, generally limit all communication to questions the juries make and possible answers to them, and only want them to give the verdict, with no further elaboration.

Does this continue after the jury is discharged? Is the fact that the foreperson told they did not need jury instructions admissible evidence? Or in the Novell-Microsoft case, the fact that all but one juror was for Novell?

Can the court take note of such evidence if it wants to, or is it forbidden?

Imagine an extreme case where the foreperson tells after the jury was discharged, for example, that they reached the verdict due to racial issues. Would or could a court overturn the verdict on those grounds?

Basically, I see three possible answers: The court is required (at least in some circumstances) from taking note; the court is allowed, but not required, to take note; or the court cannot give any weight to such statements.

I don't know which way I would wish it to be. A jury decision on wrong grounds is, of course, problematic. But then I believe the system relies heavily on the fact that jurors have the right to keep the deliberation confidential, and a court giving weight to a single juror's (possibly false or biased) statements might force other jurors to choose between giving up their right to keep it to themselves and essentially letting the single juror ruin it all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )