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
Can not see a US Jury finding against Apple - But I have been surprised before :-) | 248 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
#_#

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Closing Statements in Apple v Samsung - From the Courthouse ~pj
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT

Please Mr. Mofo, spare me from your "compelling summation". I'm not buying it. Samsung's document trail only shows normal industrial activity, when you consider Apple's patents are bogus.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can not see a US Jury finding against Apple - But I have been surprised before :-)
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT
The 100+ pages of questions is just ridiculous.

---
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 | # ]

Sadness
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
It makes me sad that making up a "compelling" fiction is likely to win
the votes of the jury. When did our society become so shallow and ignorant?

[ Reply to This | # ]

You don't defend what isn't wrong
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
I'd say you don't have to defend yourself if you think you
did nothing wrong. Samsung can easily show there was nothing
wrong with their actions and so no need to defend them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Steve Jobs started the iPhone project in 2003
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the iPad that was started first and they
decided to use the design for a phone at the last minute?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Lawyers intentionally misleading on LG Prada
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT
The LG Prada was announced in December of 2006.
Here's the press release:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070108070435/http://www.lge.com/about/press_archive /detail/AB_NARCH|MENU_1_20302.jhtml

And on a number of other issues. I hope the jury pays attention to and see that deception. Of course they won't see the deception part where Judge Koh didn't allow Samsung to present the evidence which Apple says they didn't produce. Seem to be very agressively wrong to do that. Knowing the evidence exists and then leading the jury to believe there is none. That should be an appealable issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple stumbles at end?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT
To me it looks like Apple's last words were beneficial to Samsung.

Apple hasn't paid one cent for Samsung's standard essential patents. Sounds
to me like it is Apple that is waltzing in here and saying that other's IP is
meaningless, give us all their money.

It took Apple 5 years to develop its first product in a category, but Samsung
took 3 intensive months to tweak their models. I guess we've got to wait
another 3 years for the iPhone 3.

Also trade dress is "overall impressions" not icons, so it doesn't
matter if
Samsung has some icons that are similar.

Apple doesn't spend advertising dollars? Sounds like Samsung's success is
due to it's advertising not being a copy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm going to see a doctor
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 02:38 AM EDT
>>>
Do they even have any bad lawyers at MOFO? If so, we haven't seen them.
And according to the bio I've linked to for you, Samsung has lost to him in an
earlier patent case, Pioneer v. Samsung. That was in the Eastern District of
Texas, though, where plaintiffs tend to do well, so let's see how it goes in
California. Still, I doubt Samsung was happy to see him.
>>>

You are flooring me, pj, I doubt I will ever recover. What hogwash. So it is
never about legal substance, it is all and always about marketing (and gossip
in the guild). With occasional support from people who should know better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copying, Patents and Eye Candy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT
I've just noted what is described as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 44" at
http://allthingsd.com/files/2012/08/44_iPhone_GalaxyS1_review.pdf
PDF, 132pp, 36MB

I read it as an admission by Samsung that the iPhone was better
than their products in about a hundred ways on usability and
appearance of the user interface. Noticeable are the number
of times an iPhone feature is described as "fun" and the
Samsung feature is "boring" or "not interesting".

Now the question is, did Samsung copy Apple's features, or did
they just make their own ones better?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v Samsung
Authored by: N_au on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT
I guess you could say this is on topic. Just viewed a news clip in Australia
where Samsung have setup their own technology store called Samsung experience
store. It is just down the street from a big apple store. They are releasing 2
new devices and they run rings around anything apple do. Like work with a split
screen on a tablet and with the phone you can project an image onto the wall to
show what you are looking at on the phone. Plus all the other hardware that they
have. I just wish I didn't live 800km away so I could go check it out. It would
make an apple store look puny with a couple of phones with different memory
sizes and a few pads with wifi or 3g and different memory sizes and a few
different computers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents and Market Results
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT

"The difference between the 5 patents that Samsung have belittled today and our patents. The products with the Apple patents have been commercially successful, they've been widely praised. The Samsung patents haven't been used by anyone, they haven't been praised, they haven't had unusual results."

This isn't the first time I've seen this statement.It has produced the same result in my emotional state every time. The patent laws say nothing about commercial success or lack thereof. It sticks in my craw that Apple thinks that everything boils down to how much they can sell. Has the bias of Steve Jobs even permeated the legal team? Is it truly about the money and not the customer or even the technology?

I would think that if the jury is technical, then this should stick in their craw, too, and we might get a result that will let the market decide what people will buy instead of some jury.

On the one hand, that's why we have patent trolls, because there is no requirement to bring the technology to market in a product. On the other hand, requiring commercial success would penalize small inventors, and make it possible for large corporations to stonewall new technology by blocking its path to market, making it available to them at a later date.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

good lawyer trumps good case ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
So can a good lawyer trump a good case? And is that the way the legal system is
supposed to work?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disturbing jingoism by the Apple lawyers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
Maybe it's just me. I wasn't there to hear the tone these were
delivered in.

But phrases about OUR constitution and OUR jury system and THE
AMERICAN patent sysyem and THE PEOPLE IN SILICON VALLEY
and "YOU can't come in and walk over OUR anti-trust laws" just
struck me as disturbing and jingoistic sounding, setting up an US,
American good Apple company versus a THEM, those nasty
foreigners impression.

I can't help but feel this is deliberate by the Apple lawyers. Anyone
else left with that impression? Especially folks who were there?

[ Reply to This | # ]

$300M per juror????
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT

I'm not sure I grasp the context of that comment.

Just to clarify, is that the number derived from the calculation:

    $Amount Apple Is Asking / Number of Jury Members = $300M
???

After all, the actual end result could be very different depending on how the Jury finds as well as what damages they actually award.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm in the 25%
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT

Samsung research shows 75% of Android purchasers didn't even consider the iPhone.
I considered it... for about half a second in order to consciously discount it as a potential purchase because it was an Apple product.

RAS

[ 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 )