|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
"Did the foreman in the Apple v. Samsung case set aside knowledge from a
prior patent case"
In jury interviews after the case they even said they put prior art aside cause
it was "bogging them down"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
This is what I have been saying all along. Koh seems to be under powered for
this case. Smart enough, yes. Experience is the problem, imo.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to scan see what needs to be corrected and to avoid duplication of
effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your
comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.
Hint: Use Preview to check that your links are ok. Avoid a Geeklog
"feature" that posts long links broken by inserting line breaks in the
URL at punctuation points such as
<a href="http://www.example.com/xyzblahblah_
blahblah/abcblahblah/defblahblah?
abcblahblah
.html">text</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
The foreman said he realized he could defend the patent.
Since the burden of proof was on Apple, should his point of
view been, "Can I attack the patent?"
Thanks,
Dennis
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is the point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- This is the point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- This is the point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- how did he - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- how did he - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- This is the point. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Wrong question in so many different ways - Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Did the foreman ask the wrong question? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- Asking the question at all is where he went wrong - Authored by: LocoYokel on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Did the foreman ask the wrong question? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with full HTML markup but
posted in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can copy and paste it
See the Comes
Tracking Page to find and claim PDF files that still need to be
transcribed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zenock on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
This is exactly what I though as I read the transcript.
Question... What happens next?
Will there be an evidentiary hearing?
How long does Samsung have to file motions for the judge to
do something about this?
What can the Judge do? Declare a mistrial?
I would love not only to see the instruction given to the
jury but the whole jury selection process as we see it in
the other case.
In that case it seems to me that the judge and Lawyers went
to a LOT of work to ferret anyone out who had any experience
with patents so they could address exactly these kinds of
issues. In the end the end they got rid of pretty near
everyone who had ever been associated with patents in
anyway. To much of a chance of bias I suppose.
So I would very much like to know what they knew about Mr.
Hogans experience going in. Did he hide his experience? Or
did no one try to find out about it.
I have to admit, after reading the transcript for Oracle vs
Google I am very very very very impressed with Judge Alsup.
I think he would make the Lawyers stand on their heads and
sing the national anthem if there was any chance it would
make the jury's job easier.
I thinking breaking up the case and simplifying it was
brilliant. I think this is where Koh fell down. I don't
think she made the job easy enough for the Jury. She gave
them way to much to try to process all at once. She should
have broken it into parts for the Jury like Alsup did. Just
my opinion.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
Just quoting from wikipedia, common sense is “the knowledge and experience which
most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they
do or should have”. This obviously leaves room for interpretation.
Now it is clear for me that someone making up theories about applicablity of
prior art having to be interchangeable (blah.. blah.. blah) is wrongfully
putting in false facts from a fringe-field of his earlier experiences. This is
easy to decide as not to be “common sense”.
But we are living in times where there are computers in classrooms, children are
tought how to use them (or, more often, educate their teachers how to use them
:-) ), and maybe we can assume that 50% of a population has been exposed to
"programming" in one way or the other during their time in school,
maybe even in a very basic "Hello World" way, or writing macros in
Excel.
And these people might as well use this knowledge to decide that some argument
of a lawyer in curt might have been unconvincing or false. And things like
explaining the interface of a Maximum or Square-Root function, that were
presented in the Java case, are clearly in the scope of even the most basic
education on programming.
So putting my long rambling to an end: Is there some applicable definition of
“common sense”, or is discussion about this in practice only relevant to edge
cases that clearly lie outside or inside the realm of common sense?
(Chris [currently no new accounts can be created...])[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
The jury foreman was just wrong no matter how he explains
it. Even his reasoning of "interchangeable" doesn't hold.
He says (no exact quotes here, I'm paraphrasing):
"Samsung violated Apple's patents because it was a blatant
copy ... and interchangeable."
And: "Apple did NOT violate Samsung's patents because it was
NOT interchangeable."
??? Mind-blown!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jacks4u on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
So, has there ever been a case where a Juror was tried for Jury tampering? It
should be fairly easy to show, from his own admissions to the media. And isn't
that a criminal offence? Does the FBI investigate? There are a number of related
questions that come easily to mind, but I'll let others ask those[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 02:07 AM EDT |
This is not over as we all know.
I think Samsung has enough to work with they can demonstrate that the procedure
the court and jury had them go through was way below an acceptable bar for
anything that could be called justice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|