|
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
A cynical view might be that the need for speed is to get the injunction lifted
before attempting to get the jury's verdict thrown out. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
| Awesome, I can't wait to buy one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
.
Apple will have a hard time opposing this. They will have
to
criticize the jury that gave them a billion.
The jury makes Koh wrong for granting the injunction. So
what does Koh think of the jury's work? Remember no matter
what, all messes are hers.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
Some people use the posts title very effectively to
show the correction succinctly.
Thnx -> Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
.
This is the real request. The Court should lift the
injunction almost sua sponte since its premise has been
eliminated by the jury.
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
"Neither the judge nor the Federal Circuit seemed to think the other Apple
patents were likely to prevail . . ."
That statement is wrong and misleading. Apple didn't seek a preliminary
injunction on all of the patents in the suit; only the design patents and the
'381
patent (the "bounce" patent).
Even with respect to these patents, the court of appeals denied the preliminary
injunction (PI) based on other factors. In determining whether to grant a PI,
several factors are considered. In addition to the likelihood of prevailing,
whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm, public interest, and balance of
hardships are all considered. For the three patents that the appeals court
denied the PI, the irreparable harm factor was the deciding factor. The court
of
appeals never stated that Apple was unlikely to prevail and actually overturned
the district court's finding that two of the design patents were likely
invalid.
Its statements like these with the Alice in Wonderland jab that show your clear
bias, which is fine as you are entitled to your opinion. However, I liked it
here
more when you just reported the facts. I guess I really just wish I would stop
seeing other people quote you as an unbiased authority.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sysadmin on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
If there has ever been an example of why you don't want to go in front of a
jury, this is it.
I personally believe this is the worst jury verdict I've ever seen, and I hope
it does NOT stand. Particularly because I have NO FAITH in our legislative
branch to fix the fundamental problem (software patents).
---
Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law, which no one can pervert! (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- After all - it's just a theory ;-) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: charlie Turner on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT
- You've got it wrong. - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
Make links clickable. Read the important stuff on the Post a Comment page.
On-topic comments will be ignored.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Please make the title of your post the same as the News Pick you are commenting
on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
What are the ways that a nullified verdict might play out?
If Samsung gets a new jury, do they get the reversal of small errors, as well as
large ones?
What about objections sustained in the first trial? Is there an expectation
that the same evidence cannot be proffered in the new trial?
If the judge tries to rule from the bench, in lieu of a usable verdict, can
Samsung demand a new jury?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What if? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- What if? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM EDT
- What if? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:53 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
And is easy to understand even the speed of it.
Verdict's basis:
1. USPTO are the experts and every patent from them is valid and anything
unregistered is not.
2. Samsung is guilty.
3. A clear message needs to be sent that IP is protected.
Part of the patent application process is the disclosure of the prior art which
the USPTO considers when approving the patent. In theory that means the
USPTO has checked all prior art and determined whether the patent
application is worthy of a patent. So, any discussion on prior art can be
skipped as the experts have already examined them.
Holding both parties as having infringed each other's patents is not a
"clear"
message. Besides Apple is a third party beneficiary through Intel on
Samsung's patents.
Samsung is guilty as there were emails about being to similar and their
experts are working through interpreters with a different cultural bias in terms
of body communication so that the simple literal answers to the questions
seem "dodgy".
Since the bulk of the testimony or maybe the most memorable was on bezels,
that was the criterion that was used to decide whether a phone was infringing
or not.
Since the iPad trade dress was unregistered, the Samsung Galaxy Tab wasn't
infringing by looking too similar.
See, nice and easy while being quick.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Inevitable on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
I keep hearing how important the jury selection process is. For the entire jury
to have made up their mind on DAY ONE is proof of that. Wow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
In order to get the injunction, Apple had to post a bond, 2.6 million to
compensate Samgsung in case they did not prevail or the injunction was turned
over by a higher court. What happens to the bond?
And the '889 patent was the muttiest dog of the design patents, a piece of glass
with a frame.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
Deciding on an overall winner and then retrofitting answers
to 700 questions to fit that winner decision is not a minor
mistake.
Failing to read the jury instructions is not a minor
mistake.
Dishing out punishment rather than compensation because you
haven't read the instructions is not a minor mistake.
Reading comments from the jurors has been eye opening. It
looks like the more they say, the better Samsung's appeal
looks.
A jury must try the case given to it, not make up its own.
It is clear that this jury did not try the case given to it,
and it's very hard to see how it can stand without such
heavy alteration that it starts to look like a mistrial.
Ianal[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
This should be handled as expeditiously as
Apple's moves for an injunction against the
infringing Samsung devices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
Have you seen
this yet? In this interview, the jury foreman is
backtracking on previous interviews. I don't like this guy.
He thinks he knows
it all, but clearly he doesn't.
So many things to comment on, but I will
limit my comment
to one thing that caught my attention. The guy was saying
why
prior art didn't invalidate the bounce patent... He said
he realized that
Apple's code could not run on the processor
that ran the prior art device.
Imagine that! ...but the
patent is on the algorithm - not the source code! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ you really have to check this video out. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- He talks about prior art for the 460 patent .. - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT
- Video of interview with jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM EDT
- Video of interview with jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- Video of interview with jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- Calculating damages - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
- Look and Feel? Here we go again... n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 02:33 AM EDT
- Video of interview with jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- I wonder why the lack of breaks wasn't mentioned.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- I hope this will provide grounds for a successful appeal! - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Video of interview with jury foreman - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
| ... for anti-competitive behavior and patent abuse! I'm in! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
You know I went and looked up the word Bezel, and you really simply can not have
a smart phone without one.
Bezel is the name for the rim and overlapping cover around a CRT screen or
mounted gem. Now the LCD screen isn't technically a CRT, but anything you use to
surround glass isn't necessarily a "window frame".
So the act of not exposing the glass edge of the glass plate that is the front
of the screen is part and parcel of this "design" element.
Absent a bezel, exposed glass will chip on reasonable contact with another,
harder object. Just ask anybody who has had one of those un-framed glass coffee
tables in a house with children.
In short, "doesn't want phone to break on slightest contact with a solid
object" now means "owned by or licensed from apple"?
That cannot be right, leastwise in a sane world...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bezel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM EDT
- Bezel? - Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:47 AM EDT
- Bezel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
Listening to that interview it sounds like Hogan has
Gene Quin's hand up his behind. Not a any sort of kinky, but
in an Edgar Bergan/Charlie McCarthy way. ( I say this
because there are some degenerates out there who will reply
otherwise. )
I've heard many people suggest here that his patent is
bogus. If that's the case then someone who is familiar
enough with challenging patents might want to take a run at
it. I'm not saying this to be vindictive but because I think
that when his patent is invalidated he will realize that he
does not know as much about patents as he thinks he does.
Also should he ever serve on a patent case again ( a real
possibility given where he lives ), other jurors will not
treat him like an expert knowing he filed a bogus patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
Very early in the interview the guy says that a patent did
not invalidate the patent because it was for a machine that
used a different CPU.
So we progress to the point where instead of taking an
existing process and adding "on a computer" or "on the
internet" now all you have to do is change the CPU.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Later in the interview I hear Hogan make another claim ( not
in the patent sense).
He says that you don't have to match all the individual
claims in a patent. But you have to match all the claims in a
patent in a sort of gestalt way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
If the prior art is invalid because it runs on a different
processor, then do Samsung tablets not infringe because they
use a different processor then iPads.
While they all use ARM based processors I believe Apple uses
their own proprietary version. Maybe someone with more
tablet background can better clue us in on this.
With the possible exception of the newsest Apple models,
none run a quad core processor. So if Samsung upgrades all
their models to Quad-core will they stop infringing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
Given the things that are coming out about jury
deliberations, I think it will be a doosy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
Does Samsung get compensated for the damage caused to them by the injunction?
Perhaps the judge should add on some gratuitous punishment to that as well like
the jury did - perhaps help even the scales of justice a bit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
This case (just like SCO's cases btw) as well as many comments undoubtedly
helped to unveil some flaws of the US legal system, at least in Civil
Law.
By coincidence I stumbled across an article in The Atlantic by an
American law professor.
While I'm unable to ascertain which system works
better, I'm pretty sure that Continental European legal practice prevents law
firms from extracting such obscene sums of money from the real economy as in the
US.
European civil lawsuits may be dull and boring, but at least the
systems seem to be more rational and less expensive than the US-style (and
increasingly UK- and AUS-style) suits.
IMHO, the legal system doesn't exist
to make a few people (lawyers) super-rich, but to make sure that justice
prevails, however difficult this turns out to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
I think we need to remember that the US Courts (for now) do not have
jurisdiction outside of the US.
The decision in Apple vs Samsung is not binding on other jurisdictions, eg. UK.
And while, on the subject, I would like to clarify the FUD that's been flying
around about the German Court's "EU-wide" injunction. Contrary to the
popular press, Germany - like the US - like any other sovereign nation - has
limits on its jurisdiction. German Courts cannot impose EU-wide injunctions.
Their power is limited to Germany and its territories. A German Court can,
however, refer an application to the ECJ (European Court of Justice). The
decisions of the ECJ are binding on all member states of the EU. The ECJ has
not yet heard ANY application by Apple for an injunction against Samsung.
I can still buy any Samsung device from a retailer here in the UK.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
This link is to images from a teardown of the
iPhone.
The case size is determined by the board size required to fit
the components, battery dimensions and the board plus battery plus display
thickness. The screen size is determined by functionality, cost, pixel density
and other display device aspects.
The obvious placing for the display
is centrally along both the vertical and horizontal axis. The board dimensions
need to be arranged to provide the physical button. The obvious location for the
button is along the lower edge, close to the natural resting place of left or
right thumb. The general dimensions of the bezel are entirely the functional
need to cater for the electronics and display within and the functionality of
that button.
The only design freedom is whether to provide a wider
bezel along the bottom to cater for the button or to provide an equal bezel, top
and bottom.
Without looking at an iPhone or an iPad image, what bezel
design decision taken by Apple leads to the unmistakable trade dress for all
Apple mobile products? Do Apple use the design patent encompassing rounded
corners for any of their mobile products? Do Samsung employ the Apple design
patent for any of the accused devices?
The rounded corners are not
functionally required by the printed circuit board or the display dimensions.
Both the PCB and the display are essentially rectangular for manufacturing and
cost reasons. Extra height is required in the case beyond the PCB and the
display in order to cater for the rounded corners of the case. The amount of
extra height is a tradeoff between the overall height of the device (long mobile
phones are inconvenient - a functionality issue) and the radius of the
rounding.
All phone corners have to be rounded. The extent of the
rounding of the iPhone corners is only partly a style issue and is mainly a
tradeoff between the dimensional and manufacturing demands of the
'phone.
Where the majority of the 'buttons' on a phone are to be
provided by icons on a touch-screen, the appearance of the resulting phone is
largely driven by user functionality and the choices of components for the
phone. Only a tiny part of the appearance is determined by trade dress (mainly
the company name) and almost all is determined by engineering decisions such as
the case materials and finish and the components used.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Teardown - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
When I heard the interview I presumed that Hogan was talking
about an Apple patent, from the context, not knowing which
patent was which.
Then I looked up the 460 patent, now it seems clear that he
either confused patents or he is very confused about what
invalidate, infringe and prior art mean.
In either case though, the argument of a different processor
just doesn't hold water.
My gut says that he misidentified patents because he says it
was the first patent. The general feel of the case is that
the Apple claims of infringment carried the most weight. So
I would look at Apple patents first.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TheMole on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
Post-verdict, how can the reports in the media of comments by members of the
jury (which seem to call into question the validity of their decision-making
process) be used by the judge and any subsequent appeals court?
Can Samsung's attorney present a motion asking for a verdict to be overturned
with quotes from the media reports of jury comments? Whilst we interested
onlookers might be outraged at some of the alleged flawed thinking displayed by
the jury foreman, will the judge and any appeal court consider it? Or does the
Court simply consider whether the verdict is reasonable based on the evidence
presented and maybe on such factors as the speed of the delivery of the verdict
in such a complex case?
I ask because over here in the UK jury deliberations are sacrosanct - it's a
criminal offence to even approach a jury member, let along identify them and
publish their comments about a case!
RA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT |
<i>Interestingly, Judge Koh had not thought that any preliminary
injunction should issue originally...</i>
Hopefully this at least bodes well that Apple's inevitable Rule 50 motion for
JMOL that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes too will be denied.
Is it likely that either side will get any Rule 50 joy?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: be2weenthelines on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
SCO seemed to think it was a good business model to sue your customers. Apple
seems to think its a good idea to sue one of their major suppliers (since
Samsung makes a significant chunk of the electronic components of, say, the
iPhone).
How hard will this come back to bite them? Maybe not so hard because they have
such a huge markup who cares if they have to pay more for the components? Maybe
really hard...I suspect Samsung will have a long memory over the way they have
been portrayed by Apple as part of this lawsuit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
This reminds of all the different brands of block chocolates in the shop. They
are all basically the same size, are rectangular in shape and are all
differentiated on the outside by different colours, the brand name and flavour
written on the packaging. (box) When they are taken out of the packaging they
all look the same with the approximately the same size of small blocks (icons).
There may be more or less depending on the overall size of the original package
size (7" or 10") and may have the manufacturer name embossed in the
top of each block (Samsung). I don't see the chocolate manufacturers suing over
the shape and number of blocks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re:Look and feel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- Look and feel - Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
- Look and feel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
"Or was that high price just for Samsung? If there is a significant
difference, and Microsoft is paying a lot less, for example, what might we
conclude?"
And you talk about an Alice in Wonderland jury....So Apple and Microsoft collude
to take out Android? Really? You do know that HTC pays Microsoft a fee for
each Android phone. It's not hard to figure out what Samsung paid Microsoft.
And if all this is unfair to Android, then why doesn't Google do something about
it. Why doesn't Google stand up to Microsoft and say, we do not infringe on
your patents. Why doesn't Google take Microsoft to court and prove once and for
all that Android does infringe on Microsoft patents?
"Isn't that the true message of all this, that the proprietary side of the
market can't win on an even playing field, so they are throwing tacks in the way
of Android, which is eating their lunch with customers? They are trying to win
in the courts by hobbling Android. People love Android. Why wouldn't they? You
can breathe. "
Yeah Apple's sales numbers were in toilet because of Android. Apple just
couldn't compete against Android...I mean the stylus wow - what a stroke of
genius - how '90s of Samsung....what color is the sky in your world.....
FYI You do realize that telecoms such as Verizon and AT&T lock down their
phones. The so called freedom you talk about does not exist from Verizon and
AT&T. The reality is these devices are no more free than Apple's.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- absolute rubbish - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- Tin Foil Hat Time - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Tin Foil Hat Time - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Tin Foil Hat Time - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- but why ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
There's been much about the jury in this case saying they
didn't "need" the
instructions to reach the verdict, and
also about the jury in the
Novell-Microsoft case hanging on
a single juror.
I have a question. It
seems that the interaction of the
court with the jury is deliberately limited
with a very
strong straitjacket. Courts only ask the juries to listen
carefully, generally limit all communication to questions
the juries make and
possible answers to them, and only want
them to give the verdict, with no
further elaboration.
Does this continue after the jury is discharged? Is the
fact that the foreperson told they did not need jury
instructions admissible
evidence? Or in the Novell-Microsoft
case, the fact that all but one juror was
for Novell?
Can the court take note of such evidence if it
wants
to, or is it forbidden?
Imagine an extreme case where the foreperson tells
after
the jury was discharged, for example, that they reached the
verdict due
to racial issues. Would or could a court
overturn the verdict on those
grounds?
Basically, I see three possible answers: The court is
required (at
least in some circumstances) from taking note;
the court is allowed, but not
required, to take note; or the
court cannot give any weight to such
statements.
I don't know which way I would wish it to be. A jury
decision
on wrong grounds is, of course, problematic. But
then I believe the system
relies heavily on the fact that
jurors have the right to keep the deliberation
confidential,
and a court giving weight to a single juror's (possibly
false or
biased) statements might force other jurors to
choose between giving up their
right to keep it to
themselves and essentially letting the single juror ruin it
all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
