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
Corrections here | 336 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT
So they can be fixed

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT
Thank you for your support


---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

why not sell a house if you aren't even living there?
Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Just because Hogan is not living there does not mean that
his wife isn't. Maybe she has had her fill of him, and
he is no longer welcome there, but he had to move out?

I know ... it is hard to believe that someone might
have had 'too much' of his 'charm'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the Copying charge
Authored by: artp on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT

The relevant part for me that related to the charge that Samsung was copying the design of the iPhone occurred in this part, right after the "Heaven and Hell" quote:

All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide, yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth.

It’s a crisis of design. The world is changing, and the flow of change isn’t something that you can have come back again by going against it.

Metamorphosis requires energy; we have ample assets in the form of our people, so as long as we are equipped with capability, the world’s change will function for us as an advantageous opportunity.

All the executives and employees in the Mobile Communications Division are diligent and exemplary that all this time, when Operators made comments about the designs we put before them, we modified and modified again, without missing a single comment. That style of Business has worked until now, but the iPhone’s emergence means the time we have to change our methods has arrived.

This sure sounds like a lot of corporate pep talks that I've been to. The bar is raised, the goal is set, now go out and make it happen. They weren't told what they had to come up with, they were told that it needed to be easy to use. And how do they reach these goals: "the time we have to change our methods has arrived".

Their target was their methods of design, not a competitor's specific design. They wanted to be easier to use. Seems simple to me, but I've been wrong before.

---
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 | # ]

Koh asked Hogan where he had worked and he identified Seagate as one of his previous employers
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
Quote:
First, the trial record does show that Judge Koh asked Hogan where he had worked and he identified Seagate as one of his previous employers.

The Court: All right. And can you tell us the seven companies you worked for? Digital Equipment, Memorex?

Prospective Juror: Okay. To begin with, I worked for a company that no longer exists called Caylis Memories; then Memorex Corporation; then Storage Technology Corporation in Colorado; Digital Equipment Corporation in Colorado Springs; I worked for Seagate Technology...

If the nature of the particular contract dispute with Seagate is Samsung's main concern than it may still have an argument, but if the real issue is a broader assertion that Hogan has a bias against Seagate — and indirectly Samsung — Judge Koh might just find that Samsung had enough information to decide whether to cut him from the jury from the start.

Samsung accuses jury foreman of misconduct in loss to Apple, but can it prove it? When jurors talk, lawyers listen

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Apple get "Koh-burned" for this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
Being essentially ignorant of judicial procedure, is there a reason Judge Koh
couldn't reject the defective filing in its entirety, or in the alternative,
allow them to repair the defect by stipulating which 30 of the pages in their
filing they don't want her to disregard? You know, just something to send a
message, not actually harm them...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why didn't the bankruptcy judge...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 10:05 PM EDT
dismiss his bankruptcy?

Sounds to me like he was "gaming" the system in a manner that
generally could not be tolerated by a judge.

Sorry. Haven't had a chance to look at the papers yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

350 models in six months?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 01:22 AM EDT
350 models? In the first half of the year! That's two models every day, 7
days a week!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question regarding juries and exhibits
Authored by: eric76 on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
Do the juries actually sit down and read the complete exhibits (when text) or do
they just accept them as saying what the lawyers claimed them to say?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The iPhone has become the standard.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 02:46 AM EDT
That’s how things are already. - Chung decl. Exh. H

Your Mission: persuade Apple to deny this; should you be unsuccessful,
then persuade Apple that a "standard" must not be emulated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I find the character assassination distasteful
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 03:37 AM EDT
The bankruptcy dealings of Hogan are not related to this case in the exposed
details. If jury duty implies that everybody and his dog is free to wash
decades of one's dirty laundry in public, then nobody will serve any more.

Can we please focus on misconduct in the actual case at hand? This is turning
into a lynching, and it is giving Groklaw rightfully a bad name.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translations
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
I've been wondering about the translations of the Korean's impressions of
meetings. The translations were apparently prepared by Apple's translator. I
wonder whether another translator would have come up with significantly
different translations since they do not read as conversational English. But
more than that I wonder if there are cultural differences which affect the
understanding of the comments.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung - More Unredacted Documents Surface Re Foreman, "Proof" of "Copying" That Isn't ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT
The one question that I have is how do you get "Heaven and
Hell" from "Heaven and Earth"? I realize it might be a case
of cultural differences, but if the translation is one thing,
they shouldn't have been allowed to imply something else.

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung - More Unredacted Documents Surface Re Foreman, "Proof" of "Copying" That Isn't ~pj Up
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
this whole country is just becoming one big lying cesspool that resemble the
leaders.

the us is the only place that I know of so far where apple has won.

to me that speaks volumes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ouch! (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
Inversion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:03 AM EDT
Here's a thought exercise for you. Remember those debating classes in school?
Well, imagine how this article would look if PJ took the exact opposite view
that she has articulated in this article...

[ And before you read any further, please understand, I am not trolling and this
is not intended to be flame bait. If what follows offends, then please just
ignore it ].

I have 2 major concerns with this article.

The first is the conflation of the idea that the jury foreman acted
inappropriately and thus led a jury to reach the wrong verdict. The second is
that Samsung are innocent and Apple were in the wrong. Apologies if I have
over-simplified in my summary - it is not my intent to mis-cast the argument
presented in this article.

Let's split out these points...

Firstly, the conduct of the foreman. Having read Groklaw since it's inception,
plus other cases besides, this is the first time that I have seen a foreman
speak at such length about a verdict and the jury deliberations. I completely
concur with views expressed here that, even at the shallowest level of analysis,
there is sufficient doubt in my mind to be willing to consider this a mistrial
and start over. I accept that the legal bar is likely higher than my gut
instinct, but then I am not legally trained and can't venture a fact-based
opinion beyond that. The important point being: we can and should stop there.

However, I am *very* uncomfortable with what has followed in this article.
Notwithstanding the fact that personal bankruptcy proceedings may be a matter of
public record [I don't know either way] I am surprised by the amount of
information about this man's history that PJ is publishing.

I remember vividly just how upset PJ was, when Laura DiDio hired private
investigators to research PJs life. I remember feeling the indignation and
disgust that DiDio would respond to a challenge on her professionalism with what
I considered to be a very low, personal blow.

So it came as a surprise and disappointment to me - and I hope you'll forgive
the use of an inflammatory turn of phrase - to see groklaw go digging into this
man's personal history to see what could be dug up. I'm not making accusations
of wrong-doing on the part of groklaw or PJ. I'm just stating that, by my
interpretation, this is double standards.



The second [and conflated] point relates to the idea that [perhaps because the
foreman misled the jury] the wrong verdict was returned.

Before I go further, maybe I should make a couple of points:-

1. I think that both Apple and Samsung [and a whole bunch of other companies
besides] are guilty of abusing and misusing the Patent & Trademarks Act to
file patents to prevent other companies from innovating by making it uneconomic
to do so. This is wrong, and it hurts the consumer in 2 ways: it deprives the
marketplace of innovation and better solutions that would otherwise exist; and
it creates an artificially closed marketplace in which a very small number of
very dominant players can charge artificially high prices, because they know
that their legal barriers [patents] will prevent other players from competing
with them.

2. I have never owned a mobile phone. I am required to carry a Blackberry for
work purposes, and I hate it.

3. I have no shares or financial interest in either company.


Right...

There are 2 points which I thought to be particularly relevant to this case
which we seem to be overlooking.

The first is the backdrop of the commercial relationship between the two
companies. This isn't simply a case of a Samsung engineer walking into an Apple
Store, taking it home, and copying the design. Into order to build components
for these devices, Samsung would have had access to early designs, trial
software, the works. This would have to be an extensive partnership, covered
most likely by a Non-Disclosure Agreement [side thought: any existing NDA did
not play a significant part in this dispute... Maybe because it has no legal
bite in comparison with a patent?] and as such Samsung would have tremendously
greater access than was even covered in trial.

Secondly, as the documents quoted in this article show, and as other exhibits,
which compared phone designs before and after the release of the iPhone have
shown, the release of that product was a watershed moment in the industry. Does
Samsung's aping of Apple's design cues constitute a reach? I don't know.

What concerns me is the way that PJ wrote about - and was genuinely pleased to
see other journalists pick up on - her inference that nowhere in documentation
Apple quoted to bolster their argument, did a Samsung executive say anything
that would suggest that the company planned to copy the iPhone. Sorry, but
that's so insubstantial as to be relevant.

When Darl McBride made claims to the effect that he genuinely believed IBM had
copied SCO's Intellectual Property into the Linux kernel, PJ's reaction was [and
I paraphrase]: "Snort..."

Going back to the suggestion of a counterpoint argument I made in my opening
remarks, we could read this comment from Samsung, which essentially says,
"We did not set out to copy the iPhone..." and respond with another
"Snort..."

In 99.9% of the coverage that Groklaw has given to cases [since I started
reading, back before the ibiblio days] I have agreed pretty much with everything
PJ has written.

That just isn't the case here.

Such a shame.

[ 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