decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
he is so wrong about prior art ... | 481 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
he is so wrong about prior art ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:31 AM EDT
If he were at least RIGHT about what is, or is not,
prior art that invalidates a patent, I might cut him
some slack. But he is just so wrong, it is painful
to listen or read or even follow his 'reasoning'.

And his wrong ideas are what the REST of the jury
had based their determinations upon.
No wonder this jury came to this mess of a verdict.

For his assumption that the code from one could
not run on the other, he would either need personal
knowledge of both, or had done some research which
is forbidden. And he is clueless that even if they
are not object compatible, it might be possible to
have source compatibility for both. And whether
or not code from one could run on the other doesn't
even have any bearing on whether the one is prior
art or NOT! It is just error upon error upon error.

When you have wrong assumptions and wrong reasoning,
if you come anywhere near a correct conclusion,
it would only be by accident. This guy isn't that lucky.

Had he by chance had his 'aha' while considering things
from the other point of view, the whole verdict might have
been completely opposite, and we might be congratulating
the jury, not realizing that they arrived at their conclusion
totally by accident.

Instead we get this.

I really hope the numerous errors and admissions and
the fact that this jury found the one device non-infringing
that the higher court thought would be most likely to
infringe, all allow some appropriate legal reconsideration
of the whole thing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Partial transcript of video
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM EDT

Wasn't the 460 patent Samsung's? Amended verdict Docket Item 1931, Items 24, 25, 26. (U.S. Patent No. 7,577,460 (the “‘460 patent”) Docket Item 80, III. COUNTERCLAIMS, PDF Page 35, line 2. "Portable composite communication terminal for transmitting/receiving and images, and operation method and communication system thereof". From the patent:

What is claimed is:

1. A data transmitting method for a portable composite communication terminal which functions as both a portable phone and a camera, comprising the steps of: entering a first E-mail transmission sub-mode upon user request for E-mail transmission while operating in a portable phone mode, the first e-mail transmission sub-mode performing a portable phone function; entering a second E-mail transmission sub-mode upon user request for E-mail transmission while operating in a display sub-mode, the second e-mail transmission sub-mode displaying an image most recently captured in a camera mode; sequentially displaying other images stored in a memory through the use of scroll keys; transmitting the address of the other party and a message received through a user interface in the first E-mail transmission sub-mode; and transmitting the address of the other party and the message received through the user interface and the image displayed on the display as an E-mail in the second E-mail transmission sub-mode.

I have no experience with email on an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch but Mail 5.2 under OS X Lion (10.7.3) has a photo browser button which has a Photo Booth sub menu item (that sub-mode thing) you can use to take a picture. The photo browser also makes your previously saved pictures available (your Pictures directory (folder) found in your home directory (folder)).

You'd need to read the patent to 'get' it (see Figure 7 and the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment), I can easily imagine Apple would be violating this claim. It appears to on a Macbook, though you might question if it is a "portable composite communication terminal which functions as both a portable phone and a camera", It has a front facing camera that operates with the Mail app, and I can use it as a portable phone (including video phone) with Google Voice and Video, Microsoft's Skype or Apple's FaceTime).

Without seeing transcripts, testimony and exhibits I have a hard time seeing how a non Apple owner/user as Mr. Hogan professed to be would be able to properly form an opinion on whether or not Apple practiced the claim or prior art was applicable from personal knowledge. (And yes I read Mr. Hogan's patent).

The '460 instruction is mentioned in Final Jury Instruction 27 (Docket Item 1901, Page 40, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Justia - not currently available on Groklaw):

If you decide that an accused Samsung product does not literally infringe an asserted Apple utility patent claim, you must then decide whether that product infringes the asserted claim under what is called the “doctrine of equivalents.” If you decide that an accused Apple product or method does not literally infringe claim 1 of Samsung’s ’460 patent, you must then decide whether that product or method infringes the asserted claim under what is called the “doctrine of equivalents.”

Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product or method can infringe an asserted utility patent claim if it includes parts or software instructions that are identical or equivalent to the requirements of the claim. If the product or method lacks a part or software instructions that is identical or equivalent to even one requirement of the asserted utility patent claim, the product or method cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. Thus, in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must look at each individual requirement of the asserted utility patent claim and decide whether the product or method has either a part or software instructions that are identical or equivalent to that individual claim requirement.
...

Jury Instruction 28 places limits on 'comprising' in the claim. Nothing in Mr. Hogan's interview or comments in the press seems to support the following of this particular instruction, the question of patent validity doesn't appear to have been put to the jury. Patent validity is a matter of law, isn't it? You might easily form the impression that three days wasn't enough time to perform their duty as outlined in the jury instructions in particular with the apparent segue here and there.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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

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