|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
Bold emphasis mine.
Hands-on time with the actual devices wasn't the
only additional bit of information the jury found themselves
considering
during deliberations. When it came to Samsung's
claims that Apple had infringed
its standards-essential
patents, the jury had only been shown select pages from
the
3GPP Release 6 standard that Apple said it adhered to; while
deciding the
verdict, the jury had access to the entire
document. Reviewing the full
specification, Hogan
said, made it clear that early deposition testimony by
two
German Intel employees — which favored Apple — was actually
correct.
The point I am trying to make is, there has been wide
spread
criticism that the verdict was arrived at in haste.
The foreman, has
been trying extremely hard and has
purposely used words like
patent-by-patent,
clause-by-clause in the Bloomberg
Youtube
interview to show that they did a thorough job and did not
rush.
Even in this interview with TheVerge, the foreman does the
same
thing. A full 3GPP specification runs into several
hundreds of pages. Even the
brief overview of 3GPP Release 6
is a good 107 pages. Basically for someone
familiar to the
field, and new to reading the specification document, it
will
easily take a couple of days just to get started and
realize which section to
look for to get relevant
information. Foreman's emphasis that they looked at
the
full specification and not just the relevant pages of
the
specification that were shortlisted by the experts of
Intel / Apple / Samsung
points out the insecurity.
Primary
reason for my hypothesis is that the
Intel witness by Apple
was just trying to say that the chip was manufactured by
Intel and Apple had no knowledge of specific algorithms
implemented by Intel
inside the chip. From that specific
testimony, it is immaterial what is written
inside the full-
specification. If the jury believed Apple's version that
Samsung had exhausted its rights as a result of their
license agreement with
Intel, then it is not required to
read even a single line from the
specification.
The foreman wants to desperately convey the
impression that
they did a thorough job. Unfortunately for them, it is
already
an undisputed fact that they were hung-up in debate
on the very first issue on
day 1 (youtube interview and
multiple other sources where the foreman himself
has claimed
this). So, they had just 1.5 days left for the rest of the
issues
and verdict.
The more he talks, the more I doubt that they looked at
all
the details carefully.
-PR
PS: I am a researcher in the
wireless domain, have made
contributions to the IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) standard
and know
the complexity of diving into a standards document for a
newcomer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
