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
Apple Files Motion for JMOL, New Trial; Opposes Samsung's Do-Not-Contact-Jury Request ~pj | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Please make the error and the correction visible
already in the title of your post, if possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Discuss news picks here. Include a link to the
original article if you can, because they tend
to scroll off that narrow right column rather
quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Things that are relevant to the Groklaw crowd, but
not related to the current article, can be discussed
here. Make sure to stay off topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT
Transcriptions of Comes documents go here.
If you don't know what this is, please have a look
at the "Comes" section linked to from the main page.
This is a volunteer effort, and any help is appreciated.
(We are finally beginning to see the end of it.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

redaction was good enough
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
the redaction didn't avoid having enough information for people to figure out
the broad-brush topics of the issue, but nobody was surprised by those.

What they kept private are the details of the exact accusations of what was done
wrong.

This is enough to prevent people from changing their story (or being coached
into changing their story), and it's enough to avoid libel accusations against
them for blackening the name of the affected people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would Samsung have any right to seek such a bar?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
"but does not seek to bar the media from communicating with the
jurors..."

freedom of the press and all that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you, Mr. Jacobs.
Authored by: cpeterson on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT

You might note that we here at Groklaw, and many others, had speculated about what the accusations might be - but it was only speculation.

Now, thanks to your filing, we know that we were correct in our speculation. That's new information.

It might have been better had it remained speculation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple tries to smear Samsung with the most preposterous double-talk ever...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT

Apple wants to suggest that Samsung has already been talking to the jury (and leaves the question in ones mind - that perhaps they are seeking a little collaboration in their efforts to overturn the jury verdict)

Apple notes that Samsung does not state whether Samsung has already contacted any of the jurors and is thus seeking now to bar Apple from an opportunity of which Samsung has already taken advantage.

Wow - way to twist it around! How do they come to the conclusion that "Samsung has already taken advantage" of the opportunity contact the jury? It boggles the mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Files Motion for JMOL, New Trial; Opposes Samsung's Do-Not-Contact-Jury Request ~pj
Authored by: shachar on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT
If the Court decides to review the damages award on a product-by-product basis, judgment as a matter of law increasing damages for some products to offset any reduction in other portions of the jury’s unitary award;

From reading the actual reasoning (page 18), this is not as outrageous as it first might seem. What Apple seems to be saying is "we do not wish to reopen the damages amounts, but if Samsung does so, we have places we think the jury found for a number that is too low as a matter of law".

I think they are trying to make the case that the damages should be left alone.

Shachar

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple is a has been, game over company
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT
They're already dead, the carrion crows are flying overhead.
The buzzards are circling ready to start their meals on the rotting, decayed
corpse of the ultimate product thieving company ever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art does not invalidate - it's in the code, stupid!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT

We have all discussed at length which of Hogan's statements are the most damning, but now that PJ has so nicely laid them all out for us in one place, something just clicked in for me in the following quote...

And so consequently, 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, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work, and the converse of that was true

Previously when I saw that, I and I think others got hung up on where he was saying "nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor", etc, because as a Groklaw reader I at least know a patent has nothing to do with what processor it runs on - it's in the claims, which are much more abstract and rarely if ever specify a processor or the code that runs in it.

Now, however, what jumps out at me was this "I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same".

Here he was clearly acting as an expert witness. He clearly states he was not just applying his knowledge to guide his own private thoughts, but rather, he is exlaining it all for the jury, and that is where he crossed the line. Undoubtedly the other jurors (with perhaps the exception of one other) had no understanding of source code, and if they approached any, were constrained to look at it only with the evidence presented to them. If that evidence was insufficient for them to form any opinion about that source code, then they should have completely ignored it as any basis for their decision. Instead, the ever-helpful jury foreman explained it all to them, and most likely his explanation would thereafter dominate their thinking instead of their own instincts. For me, this one observation is the smoking gun, sufficient to invalidate the jury decision.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Redactions visible to appeals court?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 05:33 AM EDT
An attorney friend explained to me that redactions
like in Samsung's JMOL motion could be due to impropriety of
submitting evidence in particular parts of the trial as it
could unduly influence a jury.

I suspect he is confused. The jury is already dismissed in
this case, and would a jury actually be privy to the entire
public record during deliberations?

He further suggested that redaction could also be to prevent
an appeals court from being prejudiced upon re-examination
of the record by exposure to illegally entered evidence.

Huh? Redactions hide the record from even the appeals court
justices?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Background on Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT

I'm getting lost on all the coverage, but this seems to have more information on his work history. I'm still wondering if there are more law suits around the country that can be exposed, or do lawyer's have the low down on that through their info services.

aN ewDomain.net - Samsung, Apple, Velvin Hogan: TechNow with Gina Smith 28.08.12

http://anewdomain.net/2012/08/28/velman-hogan-who-is-he-app le-samsung/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doctrine of Equivalents
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT
Unless I'm missing something, the jury misunderstood or
misused the doctrine of equivalents in coming up with their
verdict.

As I understand it, and as described in the jury
instructions, the doctrine of equivalents is a means to find
infringement even if there is no literal infringement.

The jury foreman's reference to "interchangeability" implies
that he persuaded the jury that Samsung's PRIOR ART did not
invalidate Apple's patents under the doctrine of
equivalents.

But this seems to be a manifest error of logical reasoning
and has it exactly backwards. The doctrine of equivalents
is a SUFFICIENT CONDITION in order to find that a product
infringes (i.e. if conditions of interchangeability are
satisfied, then product infringes). It is not a NECESSARY
CONDITION that prior art must have (i.e. if conditions of
interchangeability are not satisfied, then prior art does
not apply). So the jury clearly misapplied the criteria
here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the horse's mouth: It IS all about rounded rectangles
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Slightly OT, but somes legal news from across the pond, where Apple had lost,
and are appealing against the Judge's order that they (Apple) must publish
retractions to the effect that Samsung did not copy them, in main-stream media
plus on Apple's UK web-site.



Note this little gem from Apple's lawyer:

"This
[the iPad] is a design about shape. You don’t make a non-infringing design by
making the same shape and decorating it."

Straight from the horse's mouth. So
it is ALL about sightly rounded rectangles after all, despite what numerous
Apple supporters had said that it is 'not as simple as that'.

Please sir, can I
patent a sphere next?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Star*bucks
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
Bought my expensive coffee today and noticed the local Star*bucks had two tip
jars out, one labelled Apple, one labelled Samsung. Thought this was funny,
tossed my change into the one on the left. Anyone else run into this? Seems
like a way of getting customers to tip more.

[ 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 )