|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
Not only does the guy seem a bit incoherent ( as compared to
interviews of the foreman of the Rod Blagojevich hung jury),
he makes at least a couple of new points but probably more
that I didn't catch on to due to lack of legal expertise and
the fact that I wasn't taking notes.
Mouse the Lucky Dog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
From the Bloomberg interview with the jury foreman at about
the 2:40 mark, he says that he
"realized that the software on the Apple side could not be
placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa",
"And that means they are not interchangeable"
This is wrong on just so many levels. Prior art isn't NOT prior art,
just because the machines are not compatible or interchangeable.
If this were so, then one could get around such patents by
simply implementing on a non-compatible processor.
It does not matter if the machines can interchange object
code. It doesn't even matter if source code of one could
be teased to run on the other or not.
While I hope that justice will eventually be done,
the only thing I think anyone can guarantee, is that
the lawyers will be paid. It would serve Apple right
if Samsung raised the price of parts that Apple uses
at least enough to offset anything that Samsung has
to pay for this farce.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM EDT |
The level of incompetence for someone supposedly conversant
with patents and in technology of this guy is just mind
blowing. I hope he keeps talking to the media. The more he
does, the more ammunition for Samsung to ask for an
evidentiary hearing into juror misconduct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
If you read the various interviews and look at the video is it
me or did the foreman essentially say that they tossed out all
the prior art because the code could not interchangeably run
on the respective CPUs of Apple on the one hand and the prior
art on the other ? This would explain the comment about how
easy it was after finding the first patent valid. And if so ,
why then did they not find Samsung's patents valid. This
smells to high heaven....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
Another issue just occurred to me. He said the reason for
finding willfulness were the minutes of a meeting including
Google employees concerning the tablet of Samsung. Yet
considering they found that tablet non-infringing, how are
those meeting notes even applicable to the smartphones. As
far as the document from the Samsung VP is concerned it is
normal business practice to evaluate the competition and
find ways to improve product, just because that memo exists
does not in and of itself prove willfulness, even by the
standard of preponderance of the evidence. It just good
business practice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
According to the reporting, Apple were asking for fixed damages per unit for
the utility and design patents and a percentage of revenue (=100% of profit) for
the trade dress infringement, along with a few other minor amounts. If you try
to break down the juries award this way you find that the jury looks like they
awarded $1 each for the '163 and '381 patents and $1.58 per unit for the
'915 patent. Apple asked for $2, $2.02 and $3.10 respectively.
However, to make the numbers work you have to assume that the Nexus S 4G and
Replenish were guilty of infringement on all three patents.
Also, the numbers
for the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi don't add up. They were both found
to infringe only these three patents but the damages where $2.71 and
$1.42 per unit respectively (these assume the jury didn't have a different
set of sale numbers to those published).
The Galaxy Prevail got docked an
additional $22 per unit, despite also only infringing these three
patents.
The rest of the phones were docked about 14% of revenue for
infringing on the design patents or trade dress, except the Gem which was 5%,
the Infuse 4G at 10%, the Mesmerize at 17%, the Vibrant at 20% and the Fascinate
at 22%.
I made a spreadsheet
These numbers are in line with the process
laid out by the foreman, although the inconsistencies show that these were
either very rushed, whoever did them was incapable of basic math, or that the
jury worked off different sales numbers to the published numbers in the court
record. Or the initial damages were too low to punish Samsung so they tweaked
them by a few million here and there to get to $1 billion.
I would go
for the first: This jury rushed through this without a second thought to
checking anything. That lead to several obvious inconsistencies in the verdict,
and thus an irrational verdict.
The jury actually awarded more money than
Apple was seeking for the design patents ($24 per unit), because they
misunderstood the law and what Apple was asking. Violation of trade dress
entitles the wronged party to ALL of the accused products
profits.
Regards
-Jeremy
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 02:33 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
The foreman here is inventing a story or he is severely confused. He says
that their debate was about the prior art on the 460 patent, and that it was not
invalid because "Apple's software would not run on the processor" (or some other
nonsense). But, if the twittering journalists are to be believed Apple offered
no real prior art on this patent, and certainly not their own products. In
other words he confused invalidity with non-infrigement. And they found the
patent in question valid. And funnily this was the patent which Apple claimed
was invalid because it was unintelligible and indefensible. I don't think this
guy kept any of the details straight in his own mind.
The other juror who
has spoken out says the debate on the first day was on Apple's patents. The
foreman also said that his Aha moment was about Apple's patents. He probably
mis-spoke meaning one of the Apple utility patents. In none of the patents is
the ability to run on a processor an issue.
On design patents he says they
compared them with the look and feel of the accused phones against the claims in
the patent and against the apple products. That is not how patents
work...
The funny thing is that he says he was never confused and put aside
all of the spin in the case. But if you listen to him he parrots Apple's
lawyers, and is confused about the law and the facts. For example, they found
Google's comments about copying compelling evidence of wilful infringement,
despite these coming only weeks before Apple filed suit, and a year after the
release of the accused phones... He took Apple's spin "hook line and
sinker".
Also note that they spent the first day without any agreement. So
the first 8 hours of the 21 where not used for this 'detailed examination of
each item against each clause', along with doing all the math...
The sad
part about is that there seems to have been one juror who took the case
seriously, but he was only 20 and got told to shut up by the
'adults'.
Regards,
-Jeremy
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
So they skipped coffee breaks (his idea?) and he found it easier to convince
other jurors he was right if they jumped over disagreements and came back to
them later (when no doubt lack of breaks had an effect on clear thought).
Aren't isolation and limiting discussion topics coercive persuasion techniques?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
| I would suspect that, in theory at least, the jury, or its foreman, could be in
a lot of trouble. But more importantly, it seems that every time he opens his
mouth he is giving Samsung more material for an appeal. Long may he continue to
pass comments which show that the jury failed in their duty, and whether he
contradicts himself or not is probably not all that important. I think that
keen followers of Groklaw are going to see some law that we have not yet seen
come into action fairly soon. IANAL, so I can't hope to know how Samsung may
choose to handle this, but it is surely going to be interesting. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
Do they still have the voice stress lie detector? Would be a fun thing to play
this interview into it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
