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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
ApplevSamsung-1991Ex7.pdf | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Next to last section jumbled?
Authored by: stegu on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:25 AM EDT

The second last section in the transcript seems to be missing some bits, or have some extra bits inserted, and there are a couple of line breaks missing where speakers change:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO. I PROSPECTIVE JUROR: TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY THE COURT: I SEE. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO. SEE. THE PATENT WAS ISSUED NAME. AND I HAD FILED FOR THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE EFFORT TO WORK FOR IT. THAT WAS PART OF MY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT IT WAS MINE.
(Apart from the missing line breaks, I have no idea what the correct text should be.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

ApplevSamsung-1991Ex7.pdf
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex7.pdf -->
404 Error
We're sorry, but we can't find the page you have
requested.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

conversion to non-caps
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
The Court: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had
a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with
the questions. The next question is, have you or a family
member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a
lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a
witness?
Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to
that question? all right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up,
the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me
and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed
and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the
other one for that matter.

The Court: What was his -- what was the employee's claim?

Prospective Juror: It was a dispute over the software that
we had developed, whether it belonged to the company or to
him, and i had documents that showed it belonged to the
company. Ultimately, as i said, it would -- we settled out
of court and it was dismissed.

The Court: All right. Anything about that experience that
would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both
sides in this case?

Prospective Juror: I don't believe so.

The Court: Okay. Was there any dispute -- was there any
dispute as to who had created and invented the technology,
or was it largely who had ownership of it?

Prospective Juror: It was strictly who had ownership of it,
and ultimately it was established that the company did have
ownership of it, although -- and i still do -- although the
company is not in business any longer.

The Court: I see. But was there a sort of dispute as to who
had created or invented the technology as part of that
ownership question?

Prospective Juror: Yes, there was.

The Court: Um-hum.

Prospective Juror: But like i said, we settled that --
because of documentation i had, we were able to settle it
out of court and then we went back to court one last time
for the dismissal paperwork.

The Court: Okay. All right. Thank you....

So i want to make sure that both Mr. Hogan, and ms.
Rougieri, that you would apply the law as i instruct you and
not based on your understanding of the law based on your own
cases. Is that correct, Mr. Hogan?

Prospective Juror: Yes.....

The Court: Okay. All right. Would that in any way --
you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be
able to follow the instructions i give you on the law, even
if it may not completely correspond to what you may know
about the patent system or the intellectual property laws?

Prospective Juror: Yes, i follow your instructions.

The Court: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Let's go, i think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr.
Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. Let's please start
with ms. Halim.

Prospective Juror: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued
when i was at weitek, also i.c. Design. Another one was at
silicon graphics.

The Court: And it was also on i.c. Design?

Prospective Juror: Yes, right.

The Court: Okay. Were patents issued?

Prospective Juror: Yes.

The Court: And you were the inventor on both?

Prospective Juror: Yes.

The Court: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience
-- basically you obviously will bring your life experience
to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that
aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide
this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and
the evidence that's admitted during the trial?

Prospective Juror: Yes.

The Court: Okay. Thank you....

The Court: Okay. And do you have any patent applications
pending now?.... Let's go to Mr. Hogan. You had some?

Prospective Juror: Excuse me. In 2002, i filed for a patent
in video compression software, and in 2008, the patent was
issued to me. And in 2008 i filed a follow-on patent in
more detail and that is currently pending.

The Court: I see. Okay. All right....

The Court: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr.
Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be
able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's
admitted during the trial?

Prospective Juror: Yes.

The Court: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr.
Tepman?

Prospective Juror: I think so, too.

The Court: Okay. All right. Thank you. Now, was anyone
else going to answer yes to the question of have you ever
had an idea taken from you? the record should reflect no
hands have been raised. Now, the next question, have you
ever been accused of taking an idea from someone else? would
you please raise your hand? all right. Let's go to Mr.
Hogan. Would you please pass the microphone, Mr. Tepman?
thank you.

Prospective Juror: As i had stated earlier, that was -- in
2008, that was the accusation against me before the patent
was issued. But as i said, that case ultimately was dropped
in my favor.

The Court: Now, when the programmer sued you, was that
programmer also a co-inventor on the patent?

Prospective Juror: No. I PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Totally --
exclusively in my The Court: I see. Prospective Juror: No.
See. The patent was issued name. And i had filed for that
patent prior to his joining the effort to work for it. That
was part of my documentation showing that it was mine.

The Court: Okay. All right. Let me ask, if you have strong
feelings or strong opinions about either the united states
patent system or intellectual property laws, would you raise
your hand, please? the record should reflect that no hands
have been raised....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex16.pdf link is broken
Authored by: SLi on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
1991 exhibit 16:

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex16.pdf

doesn't work.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

remittitur -> ?
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
Please confirm that remittitur is correct so that I can, safely, add it to my
dictionary.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • remittitur -> ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
    • Thanks - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT
News pick link broken
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
"Apple's feud with google is now felt on the IPhone"

links to

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/technology/apples-feud-with-go
ogle-is-now-felt-on-the-iphone.html?pagewanted=all

recieving a 404 error on groklaws server

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Later Exhibits to Docket#1990 are 404 (4AM ET Tues)(n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT
n/t, possibly many filed under seal...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Docket #1987 is 404...(n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 04:20 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )