|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
He seems reasonable, but I do think he's confused about prior
art... and the prior art with this case in particular.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
This interview indeed solidifies the allegations that have
been made against the jury. Moreover I think it clearly shows
that the foreman acted as an expert witness in the jury room
that could not be subjected to cross examination. The more he
talks and the more inconsistencies show up because of it, the
harder it should get for the judge to ignore this rogue jury
verdict.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
BBC
What was actually meant by that statement when I made it
was
that what I wanted... the jurors wanted to send a message to the industry
at
large that no matter who you are - whether you are Apple, whether you are
Samsung, or anybody - if you wilfully take the risk to cross the line and start
infringing and you get caught, and again I emphasise wilfully, you need to be
prepared to pay the cost for that.
Firstly the ellipsis there,
"I" wanted, or the jury wanted?
Second, in our jurisdiction damages can be
awarded as "special" damages,
which
are
usually the actual loss suffered by
the complainant; and "exemplary" damages
pour encourager les autres.
They didn't know about the treble for
wilfulness, so made up their(his?) own
rule about it.
And so consequently, when we looked at the source
code - I
was
able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two
methods in
software
were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable
because the hardware
that
was involved between the old processor and the new
processor - you couldn't
load the new software methodology in the old system
and expect that it was
going to work, and the converse of that was
true.
Errm, yeah, I can read source code too, but if you asked
me what language it
was
I'd be guessing about half the time. And what's this
about "loading the
software
methodology"? I thought Samsung's claim was the
method, input and output
were the same, and nobody cares for the code.
Iguess this 40,000 foot level must have something to do with it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
And so consequently, when we looked at the
source code - I was able
to read source code - I showed the
jurors that the two methods in software were
not the same,
nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that
was
involved between the old processor and the new processor
- you couldn't load
the new software methodology in the old
system and expect that it was going to
work, and the
converse of that was true.
He says he judged
patent infringement (presumably Apple's
violation of Samsung's mobile patents)
didn't take place
because "the source code wasn't identical", and he
orchestrated the other jurors to vote on that basis (was
copyright
infringement even claimed?). In order influence
the other jurors, he presented
himself to the other jurors
as an expert witness on software code, processor
hardware
and patent infringement, and made some unique and bizarre
interpretations on all of these, and he indicates that it
the jury followed
this rather than court testimony to reach
their decision.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
--From the BBC interview --
And what I mean by the term "can I
defend this patent", there's a process you go through in this country that you
go through before a patent issued.
When the patent office determines
that they are going to reject your patent based on a claim you are making
against prior art - and in my case I had several of those - you have to be able
to lay the groundwork and defend your claim that in light of the prior art it
would not have been obvious to the individual who drafted that prior art that
the new methodology could have been accomplished.
So that's the
comparison and that's what I meant by defending the patent. And I'm going
through this thought process of the patent that was involved and the prior art
example that was involved, and making that comparison.
And when I got
through with that comparison and that test, I asked myself the question:
could I defend this patent, not in the court, could I defend this patent
through that process just like I had to do my own if this were mine? And
that's the "aha" moment that you hear talked about out there.
The
answer to that question for me was yes. And so it just hit me that evening that
that process I needed to explain to my fellow jurors because I was the only one
that had ever gone through that process among them.
In the
prosecution history of Hogan's patent application, like most applicant's, Hogan
overcame prior art through a combination of argument and claim amendment.
Mostly claim amendment.
The quotes from the BBC interview suggest that he
performed a mental exercise of "defending" the Apple claims from the prior art,
as if he was responding to Office Action rejections during the prosecution of
the application. In Hogan's experience, that defense was done by amending the
claims to distinguish from the prior art.
I'm beginning to believe Hogan
saw a way to amend the Apple claims, perhaps by adding a limitation for a
certain type of processor, that effectively distinguished the prior
art.
Astounding, if true. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
