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
Language, please. | 484 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:28 AM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
Using the posts title for a summary is appreciated.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

By the same Logic, isn't Samsung innocent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:35 AM EDT

Can the "invention" on the Apple device be moved straight over to run on Samsung and Android?

After all:

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable.
Logically - if it isn't prior art for that reason, how can it infringe?

Caveat: the above doesn't speak to the Law. After all, it appears quite clear the Jury ignored the Jury Instructions on the Law. The above simply speaks to the contradiction employed by the Jury to reach their decisions.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

A man with an answer looking for a question to apply it to
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
A man with an answer looking for a question to apply it to.
That is what the foreman looks like to me. I think that is
why he sounds so incoherent - he is so excited about what he
has "learned" and so eager to convince everybody else of it,
that he can't get the words out right.

I am very suspicious of his technique of skipping over
controversy to settle the simple matters. If the jury wasn't
allowed to discuss something that was a basic disagreement,
and come to terms on those disagreements first, then they
were never able to come together as a team, and any
other decision would be very suspect in my mind. He would
just be manipulating them to get the right decision. It just
sounds so very manipulative. It might have been
subconsciously manipulative, but the results were the same.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The lawyer that you link to seems to have goten it wrong.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
The link that you provided to a lawyer (Scott A. McKeown on the
patentspostgrant.com web site) "saying it too now" seems to be talking
about obviousness, not prior art, which I thought were 2 different reasons that
a patent can be found invalid and which have different rules as to how they can
invalidate a patent. Mr. Jury Foreman specifically stated that he was
considering prior art in the Bloomberg video, but Mr. McKeown only talks about
obviousness. I don't understand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
Does it actually matter what he says, or what happened in the deliberation room?
They reached a verdict, what are the odds of any judges overturning it in this
country?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury instructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
PJ, given the amount of prior art produced by Samsung was
there any specific instructions regarding prior art in the
jury instructions?

If not than it seems that would be an error of more than
three groups; judge, Samsung, Apple and Jurors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Literary Example
Authored by: TheOldBear on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT
When Charles Hall attempted to patent the water bed, the application was rejected due to prior art.

The prior art was in Heinlen's 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon

Apparently back in the 1960's, patent examiners could read things other than patents to locate prior art

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT
First things first.

See link above for "Comes v. MS" for further instructions.

Off to take my wife to work. I hope somebody finishes the
canonicals.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trial by jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT
Is the USA the only country in the world that uses trial by jury for this sort
of case? Do people in the USA still believe that trial by jury is a good thing?
Who would you want to decide your fate in a trial, civil or criminal? Vel Hogan,
or someone with relevant training and experience?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Apple shouldn't want to win like this."
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT
> Apple shouldn't want to win like this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! That is hilarious.

Of course Apple wants to win like this. They want to win anyway they can. That
is why they filed like 60 motions to sanction or default Samsung, and why, when
Samsung files a motion to vacate the verdict, Apple will oppose it vigorously.

They are ATTORNEYS. They don't care how they win, as long as they win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm not sure trial by the USPTO panel would be much better for a defendent
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM EDT
Even considering non presumptions etc noted above, there's an
issue of basic soundness of the organisation.

Frankly with some of the nonsense that seems to pass for a
patent these days I think many might rather roll the jury
dice no matter how lacking in understanding of complex
technical and legal subjects any jury might be.

Is it a choice between ignorance and active incompetence?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The software is indeed "interchangeable"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
Of course it is not required that prior art be "interchangeable" in order to invalidate; nonetheless, if the original prior art device is a general purpose computer then there is no reason the Apple code could not be executed on it (or rather, on a virtual machine running on it), and vice versa.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT
According to the interviews on WSJ or LA times, the jury was hung the first day
because of the bounce back patent. So I think the foreman was talking about
that one, and he just mistakenly use 460 as the patent number.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Point some are missing ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
Some folks are getting hung up on '460 and whose that was,
and if the guy mis-remembered or mis-spoke.
Some also think that only that portion of the ruling
specifically tied to that utility patent would be affected.

If the jury did not properly follow the instructions
on what constitutes prior art, then you cannot count
on ANY of their utility patent related findings,
or anything that then stems from those.

We have an indication that due to this guy, the whole
jury was misled and did not do their job properly.
There is no reason to expect that they did any better
on any other utility patent, regardless of whose it was.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the foreman's words be used in appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Since the foreman has made public statements about the trial that indicate it
was a questionable verdict, can Samsung use his public statements in the appeal
process?

-DSW

[ Reply to This | # ]

So... how can Samsung be infringing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT
How can Samsung be infringing, if the Prior Art is not
applicable?

If the Prior Art does not invalidate the patents because it
ran on a different processor, how can Samsung be infringing,
running their application on a different processor?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
For those who can break away from commenting on the expert
jury foreman.

Posting On Topic will make us force you to support the
foreman.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT
URL please.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
It is not about a particular patent. It doesn't matter the
foreman was talking about the bounce back patent or the
Samsung's 460 patent (more on this later.) His statement
indicated that:
(1) He ignored the Jury's instruction on prior arts, and
unfortunately, his interpretation of prior art is very
wrong.
(2) His judgement on the patent validation is not based on
the evidences, but based on if he could defend it as his
own. Also, his defense is not based on the evidences, but
based on his own thought.
(3) He passed his idea to the rest of jury and they use this
very wrong way to try all the patents in this case.

Now, back to which patent he was talking about. He said
that it was the "460" patent, which is actually a Samsung
patent. However, all other information indicates that he
got the patent number wrong and he was indeed talking about
the "bounce back" patent. Several interviews suggests that
the jury was discussing the first patent (bounce back
patent) on the list and couldn't reach an agreement by the
end of the first day. Many got confused by the prior arts.
Then that night, the foreman's aha moment came, and he laid
out his idea on the table next day, and they made progress.
Indeed, in the interview, after he said the "460" patent, he
started to talk about how apple's code couldn't run on a
prior art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Runaway Jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:46 AM EDT
The foreman's whole conduct brings the movie "Runway Jury" to mind -
in that movie jurors with agendas were preferred.

His somewhat self-congratulatory behavior subsequently will probably have
consequences.

Personally, I think he should keep talking; the more he says the harder it will
be for Judge Koh to ignore.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Runaway Jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
  • Runaway Jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT
Case law on on admitting jurors statements to nuullify a verdictr.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Anyone know what it is?

I don't think there is a hearsay problem, the press reports
might present such a problem, but not the video tape..

The thing is that most of the case law I found concerns
criminal not civil cases.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

One more flaw in the understanding of Design Patent by the Foreman?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT
Starting time 13:21 in the video, the Foreman discusses how did they view the design patents for about a minute.

At time 13:51
Foreman: ... and so in case of the Design Patent, it was the look and feel of it. And how the device presented itself. And when you compared them side-by-side against the statements in the patent, it was clear to every one of us, not only was the patent valid, but the Samsung products that were accused were legitimately a problem.
So, basically, Mr. Foreman claims that design patents have "statements" describing the design, which is not true. He also states that they just looked at these products side-by- side ignoring any obviousness tests and functional aspects of the Design on a touchscreen only device. Effectively toeing Apple's line that overall look and feel is important, ignore the details like absence of round home button, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Aha moment that Groklaw seems to miss
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT
Clearly, the jury got the whole prior art thing wrong.

But, here's the all time best clincher of the whole thing.

Wait for it.

EVEN under this bizarre, twisted, demented application of Patent Law, the
Samsung Tablet STILL was found not to infringe any of Apple's patents.

It's devastating to Apple's hopes and dreams of banning the Samsung Tablet. The
only device that actually got banned before the trial started. Meaning, as PJ
has said, Judge Koh got it right, and the Appeals Court got it wrong. This is
hopeful news for justice. Since Judge Koh apparently has a clue, even if she has
a prejudice against Samsung. And I'm not saying she does, but some here have so
intimated.

[Sorry Mr. Lynch, 5th Grade Teacher, about starting a sentence with
"and". PS. you were the best teacher I ever had.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ah ha moment == phone call ?
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
Something smells funny to me.

Multicast Labs incorporated in Nevada also 2 years after incorporating in California. Other corps also probably for tax reasons.

Only your hairdresser^NSA knows for sure.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Language, please.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
From PJ's policies (link near top of page):

"No foul language or links to porn or other such things. That includes
initials and ****s."

Thanks for helping to keep Groklaw family-friendly. :)

-- Anonymous

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Programs 'as such'
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
If the magic words 'as such' can magically transform a
general purpose computer into a 'specific machine', then the
magic words in the Samsung device transform it into an iPhone
or iPad when it uses Apple's inventions. Of course, it
happens too quickly to be seen with the naked eye. A lawyer
is required to be able to see the change occur. Why don't we
call lawyers wizards?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beyond crazy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
One can't even begin to express how mindbending the foreman's
revelations are. To think that a "trial" like this happened
in this age, in America.

Truly, truly, truly insane.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
The foreman's behavior and actions are just so egregious that
the judge should summarily declare a mistrial! Bogus doesn't
even do the situation justice!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury instructions wrong?
Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention
I thought that a case a few years ago (relating to something automotive, throttle pedals, I think) that established that just putting together 2 existing inventions was not patentable. This flies in the face of the idea that prior art must describe all the claims of an invention for it to be relevant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The jury system indicted
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
I am speechless over this travesty of justice.

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Andrew Orlowski
Authored by: FrankH on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
...Andrew Orlowski may wish now to edit his paen of praise in The Register to the foreman's "clarity of thinking" and common sense approach...

Andrew Orlowski loves to write provocative pieces about freetards* as he likes to call those of us who prefer the freedom of the GPL to his wonderful world of locked in software. If you expect a retraction I think you'll be waiting a long, long time.

* I think "freetard" is a contraction of freedom loving retard. I'd be insulted if I didn't think that's exactly what he intended. The man is a fool.

---
All right now, baby it's all right now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

processor and samsung
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
The interesting part is that Samsung makes the processors in the iPhone/iPad
devices...wonder if the foreman knew that when he used the "processor"
(il)logic

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT
" Software is algorithms, and algorithms are mathematics. That's why they
should never be allowed to be patented in the first place, which would have
avoided all this Apple v. Samsung trial about bounceback anyway."

Really? By extension of that logic books are just words, words are letters,
and since letters aren't copyrighted then books shouldn't be allowed to be
copyrighted either. Or, airplanes are just applied physics, physics is an
extension of mathematics, so airplane designs shouldn't be patentable
either.

It's an absurd position. What matters are the combinations of algorithms,
words, and physics. Unless you really want to argue that there is
equivalency between the scribblings of my 4 year old and the works of
William Shakespeare. Just because the underlying building blocks of
EVERYTHING are non-patentable doesn't mean that we should eliminate
patents altogether. It's complete rubbish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT
If you look at some of the prior art claims made by Samsung
they are 100% legitimate.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-
apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

[ Reply to This | # ]

I smell a rat--or at least a mouse...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT
I realize (as another commenter pointed out) that the foreman may have been excited and jumbled the words. But, this section of the interview speaks volumes to me. To me, it sounds like he started to answer truthfully, realized the implications, and corrected himself.... What was it?
Emily Chang: You know it's all obviously extremely technical. there has been a lot of talk since this verdict has come down. How did you guys make this verdict so quickly. There were more than a hundred pages of jury instructions. There are even reports that you didn't read all of those instructions.
Vel Hogan: Oh. We read. First off, before closing arguments was given, the judge read to us the final instructions, instruction by instruction. Then she allowed the closing arguments, then she dismissed us. And so we had those closing argue..., those ah, instructions and we had them open there and then we took patent by patent and got hung upon the first one but the day was almost over by then and so I said to the jury, "We're not going to allow ourselves to get hung up. We're going to, if we find a debate like this, we'll move on. We'll do the simplest things first.” So then when I came back the next day...
Specifically this line: And so we had those closing argue..., those ah, instructions and we had them open there and then we took patent I don't think they used the instructions--as much as they did Apple's closing arguments to decide things. At least that's how I think the foreman rolled. Have a great day:) Patrick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
Hacker was first used to describe unauthorized users from
the phone system at MIT, in 1963. Modern usage neither
hacker nor cracker means morally 'good' or 'bad'. A hacker
is someone who is very talented, how the apply their skills
is another matter. A cracker is someone who cracks
encryption. Generally starting around when games on floppy
disk used techniques to prevent copying.
linkypoo:
http://duartes.org/gustavo/blog/post/first-recorded-usage-
of-hacker


Regarding the issue at hand: Can a member of the jury
instruct other members to thing not specifically brought up
at the trial? seems wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does what the jury did actually matter?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
I'm not sure I understand all the discussion about how the jury made its
decision
and why it might be invalid or subject to appeal as a
result.

Isn't it the case that how the jury arrives at its verdict is totally
irrelevant? All
that matters is that they reach a verdict. They can ignore
the jury instructions. They can flip a coin. They can consult their
horoscopes.
They can even ignore the law (see 'jury nullification').

The whole idea of a jury system is that a jury makes the decision. They don't
have to give their reasons. Historically, the jury's
decision would have been inscrutable. The only thing that has changed is that
now we have virtually instant media reporting and jury
members who are happy to talk.

Or am I totally wrong about this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 01:11 AM EDT
Is there any room for dissent on this blog? Everyone has their mind made
up before cases go to trial? without ever seeing the actual evidence?

The posters yell bloody murder if the trial doesn't go the way sj
recommends?

This informative website has gone downhill in order to appease the
ignorant who won't read a whole patent filing, just the summary.

When I read biased comments by people that can't bother to read the full
articles or think for themselves, I look forward to our ape overlords. The
human race is damned by our collective ignorance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Even FM appears to think the jury is nuts on this
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT
While he tries to soften what he's saying at the same time, it's pretty clear
what he thinks. Eg "there's no question that Apple hit the lottery jackpot
with this foreman". And that it's ridiculous to suggest all the patents in
question were invalid.

Given his uh... "consulting work", maybe even Apple was taken aback by
how crazy the jury was on prior art?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Velin Hogan had every motivation to orchestrate, rig, and subvert the jury deliberations.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT
The jury foreman Velin Hogan has a patent for a Tivo that is
invalidated by prior art (the Tivo and other devices that
preceded his "invention") - a very similar situation to
Apple's patent claims for things like the rectangle with
rounded corner and bounce back patents that make up most of
Apple's claims.

He certainly has a strong motive to rig and orchestrate the
deliberations to serve his own interests - in this case if
Apple wins its patent claims and sets a precedent through
the foreman's totally novel concept of judging prior art,
then perhaps his claims for the Tivo, which carry some
weight, since they are similar in terms of prior art to
Apples - ie. claims of ownership to things that others had
invented and had used before, and if this case results in
very high penalties, it increases his chances of
intimidating smaller manufacturers into paying him off to
avoid the nuisance of lawsuits even though his patents may
be invalidated by prior art.

Indeed judging from the discussion of what happened in
deliberation, it certainly looks like this is exactly what
happened - that he wanted Samsung to lose all the patent
claims from the beginning regardless of any evidence
presented in the case, and wanted them "punished" with a
huge penalty, and therefore disregarded jury instructions
and rules, posed as an expert and on that basis orchestrated
the remainder of the jury to also ignore the evidence, jury
instructions, and rules.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bounce-Back is Functional
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
If you are following something with your eyes that is moving quickly,
particularly for an extended time period, and that thing suddenly stops dead (an
occurrence that rarely happens in nature), then your eyes can play tricks on you
and perceive things that aren't happening. By simulating a more natural
deceleration or even a bounce of that moving thing, a better approximation to
what happens in nature occurs and your eyes/mind can deal with it that much
better.

Bounce-back isn't just a fancy, jazzy effect; it approximates nature and
improves perception.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Latest Apple Lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Breaking NEWS!

Apple are to sue the London Olympic Committe (LOC) for breach of copyright and
design patents.

An apple was used in the opening ceremony of the 2012 paralympics to salute the
enlightenment, and Newton's fabled discovery of gravity when an apple fell on
his head.

An Apple spokesperson said: 'We spent billions in marketing to promote apples
and their link with Apple products, and any other organisation using any form of
apple shaped fruits would dilute our famous brand. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that the the apple account of Newton actually happened, and we will
ask
Cambride University to desist from mentioning any form of apples in connection
with Newton or gravity in future.'

With regards to the LOC suit, the spokesperson added: 'They could have used
falling metal balls, or the motions of the planets, or a thousand different
images to depict the discovery of gravity. To use an apple is slasvishly
copying our brand and innovation, and an attempt to ride on the back of our hard
work and sucess. It took us over 40 years to establish Apple as an unique icon.
They should do their own research rather than steal our ideas.'

[ Reply to This | # ]

He's done an interview for BBC
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 10:27 PM EDT

Another interview and in my opinion, it just gets worse and worse. As I understand it, he demonstrates clearly that he doesn't understand prior art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slight diversion: Software != Maths
Authored by: emmenjay on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:03 AM EDT
> Software is algorithms, and algorithms are mathematics. I hate it when people say that, it just isn't true.
  1. Software is algorithms
    2. Software contains algorithms. Not the same. It also contains other stuff like data structures and interfaces.

  2. algorithms are mathematics
    3. Not necessarily. An algorithm is like a recipe. Steps to perform some task. I could easily write an algorithm to make a cup of tea.

    At the bare metal level, most of the CPU instructions are maths operations, but that is not about algorithms.

    A compiler or interpreter translates Java or Python or Visual Basic (or whatever) into the binary code that is executed, but it would be the high-level techniques that might be patented. Those techniques could be translated into many different binary representations.

    Some algorithms are mathematical, such as encrypting text or computing sales tax. Others are not really, such as displaying a (uncompressed) bitmap image.

    Many programmers are (sadly) almost innumerate.

    As an example: autocompletion of text, as you type involves a bit of maths in its implementation, but the big innovation was the idea to perform autocompletion.
There are a lot of ingredients that make great software and maths is only one of them.

Note: None of the above is a comment on whether patenting software is a good idea. Just on the definition of software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You may find this useful
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT
You may find this useful since Hogan appears to have shot himself in the foot
yet again to the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated
Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
I wonder, how was it again that this jury foreman survived
voire dire challenges? Someone didn't do their job correctly;
otherwise, this guy would have been at home eating a sandwich
when a possibly more correct verdict was rendered. The
verdict is a travesty led by a lone idiot in the quest for
his own brand of patent justice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment
Authored by: LuYu on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:28 AM EDT

While PJ's analysis is as complete as usual, I feel that people are missing the bigger picture. The foreman confessed his bias in the first press statement. He stated, "When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?'".

This means that he was not trying to come to an objective decision based on the evidence in the case. Rather, he was attempting to defend the patent system from what he perceived as a threat to his patent.

Further, he went on to say he convinced the rest of the jury to see things his way. I cannot believe there has not been more outrage over this perversion of the entire concept of juries. Juries, like judges, are supposed to make fair and mostly unbiased decisions based on the information presented in court. They are not supposed to bring their prejudices with them into court. This is why they are always barred from reading the press around important cases.

If this case is not dismissed, I will lose all faith in the US legal system. This foreman has betrayed the People of the United States and the world with his dereliction of duty. The judge should reprimand him severely and throw the case out.

---
If you believe in "intellectual property,"
you are an enemy of Free Speech and
the Constitution.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did he effectively amend the claims in Apple's patent to avoid prior art?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 10:37 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.

Does the judge have discretion to bring Hogan back to court and ask him how he defends the Apple patent "as if it's his own" against the prior art? I.e., take the court through the process that he took the other jurors through.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Source code
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
[...] 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 [...]
Where there any source code in the evidence? or where did this source code come from? I don't seem to remember any being mentioned, but perhaps it was just not used in open court. If it was downloaded by the jury from the net, it would be bad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
I love this "Aha moment" simply because Samsung can use it as
a "Derp derp moment" when they appeal. In combination with
the USPTO reviewing the validity of Apple's rectangle with
round corners patent and more than likely invalidating it
this could turn the $1 billion into a few million at best.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's getting even more insane
Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT

From Apple v. Samsung jury foreman: only the 'court of popular opinion' can change the patent system:

and that he was pleased he'd been selected "because I wanted to be satisfied from my own perspective that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

In other words, he wanted to protect the copyrights and intellectual property. If this indicates that he wanted to do that when he was selected, then he was working on a hidden agenda the entire time he was on the jury.

Hogan said he was one of a pair of jurors that served as the de facto technical experts of the nine-person panel. There was a sense amongst the jury that at times Samsung had been trying to muddy the technical waters, he admitted, with several jurors asking questions about the more nuanced issues in play.

In other words, he served as an expert witness who was entirely beyond the reach of the court itself -- neither the attorneys nor the judge were able to hear his testimony to the jury. He basically played everyone in pushing his agenda.

[ Reply to This | # ]
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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds