|
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 | # ]
|
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- And yet here we are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Trade Dress - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Jury Proudly Singing; I've Been Working on the Railroad... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- They are quite proud... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- They are quite proud... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT
- It gets better and better.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:04 PM EDT
- They started at a billion dollars and worked back from there - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- What about my phone with rounded corners? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:25 AM EDT
- What about my phone with rounded corners? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:27 AM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: ShawnX on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- Jury foreman treated it as a "president" to defend his own patents... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- How is it possible they decided so fast? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Not unusual in my experience - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Are these people a bunch of sheep? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Not an Apple fanboy, a patent fanboy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Apple's [pet] jury to world: - Authored by: digger53 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
|
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 |
:( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Link provided. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- There you go then - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- time allowed on defense - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Oh the errors - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- Oh the errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- The jury clearly goofed... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Yes, merit. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- What bias and outright unfairness. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- No Apple copied Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung etc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Samsung Juror Speaks Out - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- Tell me the Galaxy is nothing like the iPad - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- A long thought for your thought. - Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- copyright??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Decision Highlights problems with the current patent and legal system - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855 - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- Calculation indentation markup - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- plaitiff -> plaintiff - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Bond - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- Bond - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Have we seen damages from the judge yet? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- -illions - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- -illions - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- yikes - Authored by: BJ on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: miltonw on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Hogan's patent seems to be for a device like Tivo or a media center pc - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Nope. Not even close to a basis for mistrial... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on moon, dies at age 82 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Voting machines - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Samsung Galaxy SIII $0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:39 PM EDT
- Online customer terms not creating contract - UK - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:00 AM EDT
- ANTERNET - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Not Pat-ents - Authored by: stegu on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- ANTERNET - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:41 AM EDT
- ANTERNET - Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- ANTERNET - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT
- Groklaw a little slow? - Being on the front page of Reddit can do that - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Will Windows 8 break your privacy? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- Off Topic threads - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- iPhone 5 to Save the World - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT
- Marketplace: M$ wins in Apple v Samsung - Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- I know PJ said no politics but SHAME ON YOU Scott McNealy - Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- Harvesting Facebook For Fun And Profit - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- Maybe not that crazy after all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- One for the Numerologists - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- Crazy case - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: cjk fossman on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
- Yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- How were amounts calculated? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
|
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://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/articlebasic.php%3fstory=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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Juror Misconduct - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Juror Misconduct - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- What's next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- What's next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- What's next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Indeed - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Will you learn your lesson? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Samsung will have to learn its lesson - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT
- Samsung will have to learn its lesson - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- Interesting concept, but not applicable - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Apple zealots need to get a grip - Authored by: AH1 on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- how can galaxy phone look like iphone? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Samsung will have to learn its lesson - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Good analogy, except for the reverse - Authored by: miltonw on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Samsung will have to learn its lesson - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:08 AM EDT
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
- /phandroid's Total is $251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- /phandroid's Total is $251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- /phandroid's Total is $251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT
|
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?
- 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 |
So, this guy applied for a patent in 2002.
If you look at this old /. article
you see where he
got his ideas from:
pvr-for-linux
a>
Since then the vdr page moved to:
www.tvdr.de
You find the sources of vdr.c
in
ftp://ftp.tvdr.de/vdr/vdr-1.6.0.tar.bz2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Re: Steve Jobs blogged about DiamondTouch, in Aug 25, 2004!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- Steve Jobs blogged about DiamondTouch, in Aug 25, 2004!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Steve Jobs blogged about DiamondTouch, in Aug 25, 2004!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:41 PM EDT
- Not Steve Jobs, but Gundrum - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT
|
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 |
Looks like the foreman made a mistake. In interview, he says patents valid
because Apple software cannot run on the processor of the prior art! See 2:50.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/28/apple-samsung-foreman-explains
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|