|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
I think you are right!!! I was thinking on your line while
reading the comments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Jury instruction 24, ("There are two ways in which a patent claim may be
directly infringed. A claim may be “literally” infringed, or it may be infringed
under the “doctrine of equivalents.”").
Jury instruction 27, ("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.").
Scroll keys versus touch may actually lead to the thinking behind the jury
foreman's reasoning about not being able to run on a different platform. In
graphics user interfaces human interface events are generally abstracted to what
they mean and not how they are made in software systems.
The system delivers input events and software general doesn't individually
access raw hardware directly. The idea is you don't piss off the user by
ignoring input events while the software is off doing something. You bind
hardware events to the system and not to the program which is how they get
abstracted. It also allows exception handling by graphics user interface
interaction where you could postulate a context switch to system operation and
keeps input straight when switching to another app.
Now whether a reasonable jury would find scroll keys on a cell phone and touch
selection equivalent is another matter. If they're not Apple's implementation
with a touch interface is a workaround.
Perhaps an unfortunate choice of claim language based on cell phone software
previously more closely bound to the platform, the patent claim not being
sufficiently broad to encompass touch according to the jury verdict. The claim
apparently not forward looking enough to include other input methods.
"Scroll keys" only appears in the claim, while keys also refers to
buttons on a digital key pad (which can be implemented in touch). Scrolling
might have been available should their have been sufficient number of picture
entries made on an Apple device accused of infringing and might lead a
reasonable jury to a different conclusion. If Samsung provided a 'loaded'
iDevice or made the distinction through demonstration or exhibit during
testimony the results may have been different.
The counter-plaintiff failed to make their case to this jury from what we see in
the verdict and the jury may have found reasonably based on testimony and
exhibits provided.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
