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 v. Samsung Trial Transcripts - Day 4 and 5 (Aug 6 & 7, the Exhibit Tampering Issue) ~pj Updated | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
design
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 02:38 AM EST
"Quinn then tries to ask if anyone owns the rights to "black,
rectangular devices with rounded corners and the screen's on the top". And
Apple's Mr. Lee leaps to his feet and objects, and the objection is
sustained"

Pretty much court is granting apple a patent on that design which could apply to
about every tablet on the market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:09 AM EST
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 | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:10 AM EST
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:11 AM EST
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 | # ]

Comes transcripts here
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:12 AM EST
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 | # ]

No accusation of tampering?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST
Of course he can't state that out flat. He is not allowed to come to conclusions. Sort of reminds me of "To Kill a Mockingbird" again, but then that is the gold standard of lawyering fairy tales.

"She says she asked you to bust up a chiffarobe, is that right?"

"No suh, it ain't."

"Then you say she's lying, boy?"

Atticus was on his feet, but Tom Robinson didn't need him. "I don't say she's lyin', Mr. Gilmer, I say she's mistaken in her mind."

To the next ten questions, as Mr. Gilmer reviewed Mayella's version of events, the witness's steady answer was that she was mistaken in her mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The bias appears obvious
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 04:42 AM EST
Coming in cold and reading that text, there does seem some very odd behavior
from the judge. Samsung seem to be 'lets work out what's happened here' and
when the Apple side, though at first appearing amiable, when they realise that
they're going to be outed, clam up and turn on the outrage. VERY obvious to the
most casual reader.

And it does appear that Samsung were being punished for raising the issue of
wanting to make sure everything is done right. Good job I'm not a lawyer as I'd
be all 'Apple have photoshopped evidence before to make it appear the devices
look closer than they really are, I don't put it beneath them to tweak a device
in this case either'

Something that surely could have been easily and quickly proved if the judge had
asked to have an unopened device turned on in front of her, then ask 'why is
YOUR version different Apple?' Of course they'd spin it as different versions,
but that too gets back to the Samsung lawyers.

It's just mindnumbing how the Judge isn't following common sense or any amount
of reasonable behaviour here. Due diligence would surely ask 'well, 2 lawyers
are saying different things here, and it's kinda important, which one is lying
to me?' and after evidence tampering (again) in that court room was shown,
decisions could be made.

Makes one wonder if she's picking up on the cues from the Apple lawyers
sometimes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Koh creates straw man, attacks same
Authored by: BJ on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:36 AM EST
'Apple Tampering' is a straw man. Koh should chill it.

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

samsung earlier phones were different
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:46 AM EST
So if earlier phones by samsung did not infringe and were bought by customers,
then this proves the feature was not what made the users buy the phone, no?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Home Screen vs. App Launch Tray
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM EST
I believe Mr. Johnson's argument over the exhibit is based
on the comparison of Apple's start screen (which shows the
grid of icons) and one of the pages in Android that shows
the similar grid of icons (which is not the start screen).

It's a fair comparison, but perhaps misleading or
suggestive. If it is intended to argue Apple's
patent on the icon arrangement with rounded corner icons,
than it's a fair comparison. If it's intended to argue
Apple's device style patents (full face glass with rounded
corners, silver bezel edge, etc) than the icon graphics are
moot.

The fear by Samsung (and rightly so) is that staging the
graphic to show a similar screen display can be highly
suggestive of the general feel of copying, even if the minor
patent details (where you can actually find minor details
in Apple's patents) are overlooked by the jury. Try to show
the true home screens on both devices will show there are
differences, regardless of whether or not the less than
specific patents are infringed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Trial Transcripts - Day 4 and 5 (Aug 6 & 7, the Exhibit Tampering Issue) ~pj
Authored by: Tim on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM EST
We don't know what actually happened other than what we have seen reported - The judge, like all human beings, will have some unconscious biases, or may have seen some behaviour that raised her hackles (or, again, she might not); and was, perhaps, unconsciously looking for confirmatory behaviour to reinforce her opinion. As an example, some psychologists believe that in a job interview, the interviewer makes an unconscious decision about a candidate in the first minute or so, the rest of the interview tends to reinforce their initial prejudices.

On Groklaw we think we know who the good and bad guys are. It seems to me that the law allows (encourages?) conflation of Industrial design rights, copyright and patents. Some would consider that the design of a carbonated beverage container is the ultimate "intellectual property" (a horrible term), I think that this is Apple's position - But, because we tend to have an interest in technology, we might consider that an engineering patent has more value.

Unfortunately in a commercial environment the bottle design probably has a higher commercial value than engineering. "Brands" are now more important than products - You can buy a watch from your handbag manufacturer, the idea that the bag maker has no particular experience in making watches is almost irrelevant. The name seems to guarantee the status (and quality?) of the item. There are many examples of this:-

  • Gieves & Hawkes (Savile Row gentleman's tailoring) was originally founded in 1771, and made its reputation in bespoke and military tailoring, it is now owned by a Hong Kong conglomerate. The new owners also own Cerruti,, Kent & Curwen, Ferragamo, INTERMEZZO, and D’URBAN. Initially Gieves & Hawkes clothing was made out of the highest quality British wool, and tailored in their own premises (or for non-bespoke wear, at British cutters) - Now much of their product comes from Asia.
  • Rolex and Tudor are owned by the same watch company: "Montres Tudor SA has designed, manufactured and marketed Tudor brand watches since March 6, 1946. Rolex founder Hans Wildorf conceived of the Tudor Watch Company to create a product for authorized Rolex dealers to sell that offered the reliability and dependability of a Rolex, but at a lower price". (Wikipedia) Whether a Rolex watch is 'worth' 2 - 8 times the difference in price over a Tudor watch is something that an individual decides based on what is important to them. Whether a Swatch is better 'value' is another matter.
  • Do I think Apple are on the side of the angels? No, but I understand why they are doing this. Samsung was not, until recently, a brand you associated with quality 'phones - TVs maybe - Samsung are now thought of by many as equivalent to Apple...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Out of the box
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 01:15 PM EST
    When this came up during the trial I posted here that I hoped the jury
    would get sealed boxes from a retail store of each model in dispute
    so they could see each, fresh and clean. There were some models
    of Android phones (Samsung?) that had a fixed Google search bar,
    and the various home screens rotated below it, and some did not.

    There were models that had bounce, or came to a fixed stop, or
    the blue glow, and some were workarounds, and some just
    natural development of Android. The rules of the court require the
    jury to see the exhibits actually handled in the courtroom by
    the attorneys, but here attorneys and judge all could not agree
    on what it was they were handling or looking at. So it made sense
    to my non-legal mind that the jury should get fresh retail copies,
    exactly as J. Random Purchaser would get.

    But then this case wasn't about avoiding confusion for the purchaser,
    it was about gouging a competitor.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Posner For The Win
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 02:11 PM EST
    When she said that there must be many versions and releases, as a possible explanation for the differences, he picks up that theme and runs with it, even though in truth, if they showed the wrong version, that would be a serious matter in a trial where specific versions of phones are at issue.
    When she said that there must be many versions and releases, she went on to display her lack of skill and experience in allowing this source of confusion to continue. Judge Posner would have said, "Three models, three patents, choose wisely."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    begs the question
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 09:47 PM EST
    Of why there was a trial. ;)

    If the judge was confused about how a phone straight out of
    the box looked different than another of the same model and
    concluded it was probably because of different versions and
    models, then how could said phone model be in violation of a
    static design / trade dress? How could one phone that looked
    different than another within the model series contribute to
    damages? How could a manufacturer be willful in its
    infringement when arguments arise and that manufacturer
    changes the model so that those arguments don't apply? How
    could one trial assess infringement on 25 different models
    times dozens of patches and versions?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple v. Samsung Trial Transcripts - Day 4 and 5 (Aug 6 & 7, the Exhibit Tampering Issue) ~pj Updated
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 11:52 PM EST
    "The brief generally rejects the idea that software per se represents
    patentable subject matter but is favorable toward the patenting of computerized
    applications that either improve computer performance, ..."

    From Patently O. I have not yet had a chance to read the brief, so I do not know
    what the brief's language is. If there is anything close to the quote though,
    then aside from frivolous applications like games, "fart" programs,
    screensavers most applications would qualify because they in some way or another
    improve performance.

    Mouse the Lucky Dog

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Things I wish they had said about utility and design patents
    Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST
    The jury instructions should have said that none of the asserted claims in the
    utility patents referred to the language used, the program structure, the
    processor used, the operating system used nor the display management software
    used.

    For this reason, none of these aspects are relevant to proof of infringement. If
    infringement of the asserted claims have not been proven without these aspects,
    then infringement has not been proven. It is the patent which is being asserted
    and not the technical details of products sold by the patent owner.

    For the same reason, a design patent is for the patented design. Comparison of
    accused products with products sold by the patent owner are irrelevant. It is
    only trade dress issues that may be informed by such comparisons.

    The utility patents issues, the design patents issues and the trade dress issues
    are separate and each must be considered for each accused device in isolation to
    the rest.

    When it came to expert reports, no expert can hope to prove any infringement of
    claims by reviewing the source code of such complex operating systems. Any
    review of the software is limited to an interpretation of the comments text.
    Since the comments text is insufficient for one skilled in the software arts to
    write the operating system, neither is it sufficient to prove infringement of
    the functions in the asserted claims because they are not software functions.

    Further, since the asserted claims do not claim software functions, any request
    for source code discovery is irrelevant to infringement and constitutes abuse of
    the discovery process.

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

    [ 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 )