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
Apple Experts Day? | 398 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread here, please
Authored by: myNym on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:11 PM EST
Please change the title to highlight the correction, perhaps
like so:

Kerrecshun -> Correction

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread here, please
Authored by: myNym on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:14 PM EST
And please put the link to the Newspick in your comment, so
that people may find them after they scroll off the main
screen.

HTML mode to clickify the link would also be helpful.
Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Experts Day?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:16 PM EST
Are these the same ones that couldn't tell the difference between an iphone 4s
which was current at the time and galaxy S3?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread here, please
Authored by: myNym on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:17 PM EST
Anything of general interest to Groklaw, but not pertaining
to the current article, and not including Newspicks nor Comes
transcripts go here, please.

And please, do pay attention to the "Important Stuff" below
your comment block. Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcripts here, please
Authored by: myNym on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:20 PM EST
Thanks to those tireless souls that keep plugging away at the
transcripts! Many many thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ta.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM EST
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dr. Hauser -testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 09:54 PM EST
So, Apple has a expert witness testify as to an estimate of the premium value
that a customer would be willing to pay for a set of phone features which may or
not be protected by Apple's patents, and the expert ignores the fact that the
features are already available for a cheaper price.
And that the jury is being asked to just accept his numbers with any attempt (by
Apple) at explaining the methods used to estimate the price-premium. These
numbers sound like that they are guess-estimated. (He used a computer program,
sawtooth, so they must be correct, GIGO).

Where do I apply for a job like Dr. Hauser's?

Seriously, is there any sort of appeal process for throwing this guy's numbers
(his testimony about the value of the infringement) out the window?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cross
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
I would suggest that cross examination should always ask the expert directly.
"In your expert opinion is this a strong and defendable patent?"

Because if the patent is later invalidated the whole expert testimony can be
tipped on that. Or at least the expert can be sunk in any future cases.

"Cross can then drop into the how much were you paid?" thing to
discount the opinioned answer o the above.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Experts v.Lawyers - Lawyer Lose Big TIme
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM EST
Having served as an expert in a few cases I am offended by the implication that
all "experts" will say anything for pay while lawyers collecting far
higher fees are beyond reproach. When was the last time a lawyer had his hourly
rate discussed in open court? In my experience lawyers are usually paid about
50% more than their experts.

If an expert spent a thousand hours analyzing the facts, how is that
disproportionate to the lawyers spending tens of thousands of hours arguing
minor legal points for the sole purpose of obfuscating the truth?

I have facilitated a number of settlements by telling the lawyer that their
client was full of it. I have defended a number of people who were subjected to
allegations that an independent review of the actual facts (not the facts as
alleged by the lawyers or one of the parties) were in their favor.

I have also encountered a number of lawyers willing to say anything, including
obvious falsehoods to win judgment.

It has always been my understanding that a lawyer had to have a "good
faith" basis to believe that the "facts" he was putting forward
some basis in reality. I'm afraid that in many cases I have observed that is not
true.

---
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 | # ]

PJ welcomes our Samsung Overlords
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 01:08 AM EST
PJ welcomes our Samsung Overlords

Bc a world without Apple leaves very little competition for Samsung or
Android.

A world without competiton gets us Windows Vista. What would Android
become if it dominated and there was no iOS, blackberry, or windows
phone 8?

Thanks for playing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Trial Transcript - Day 6, Aug.10 -- Apple Experts Day ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 03:42 AM EST
Re: "Here is the day's transcript, as text, although I must
caution you that I tried all kinds of ways to get it from
all caps to normal text, and some of my attempts made things
worse, and I'm still cleaning it up."

Have you tried using EditPad Pro? It has several options
for that, the simplest being converting whatever text into
all lower case. The problem there being that you then need
to capitalize the first word, but (the computer I'm on right
now doesn't have it) I think there's an option for
capitalizing the first word in a sentence.

Very appreciative of what you're doing by the way!

LHS

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Capitalize - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM EST
    • Capitalize - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 10:52 PM EST
The software patent experts' code (WARNING - MAY CONTAIN PATENT CLAIMS!).
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 08:12 AM EST
A: First of all, I analyzed the devices themselves, trying them out in the different applications, seeing which applications might infringe.

And then I -- in some cases, I also looked at the source code to confirm that the behavior was actually as was being seen on the screen for the accused devices.

Q: And what source code did you look at, sir?

A: I looked at four representative versions of source code, representative of the different phones, four of the different phones; that is, the Samsung version of the Android 2.1, Samsung version Android 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1 source code...

Q: Did you encounter any differences between the various versions of the Samsung source code that you looked at with reference to the '381 patent?

A: With regards to the functionality of the '381 patent, I did not identify any logical inconsistencies at all. They were essentially the same as it pertained to the functionality of the patent.
Q: Now, does the iPhone implement claim 19 of the '381 patent?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: And how do you know that?

A: I investigated the different iPhone devices and tried the functionality on the different devices.

I also looked at the iPhone source code to understand how it's implemented.

Q: So let's look at 27.7, Mr. Lee.

A: So this is a video of the functionality being showed in the photos application on the iPhone 3GS. This is the actual iPhone, the actual person doing the functionality.

(Whereupon, a videotape was played in open court off the record.)

THE WITNESS: As you can see, you move to the right, you get to the edge, it shows beyond the edge, and then it bounces back.
My emphasis. So, you can see what the patented invention is. 'You just have to look at what an iPhone does. That's our patented invention.'
A: If, indeed, that is the hold still behavior. and I still have an open question as to what's actually happening at the end of that video with the finger tapping.

But if, indeed, the finger has left the screen and it's holding still, that hold still behavior does not meet claim 19. But I'll note that the Vibrant, most of the time, does meet claim 19 in the gallery application, because if you use it as you normally would, it will bounce, and I'm happy to show that to you now and show it to the jury if you show me the phone.

Q: Have you reviewed the source code for the hold still routine for the Vibrant phone?

A: I have not looked at source code for the non -- for any functionality that has nothing to do with claim 19.

Q: Have you looked at any of the hold still source code for any of the phones that are accused of infringement?

A: I may have encountered it, but I don't recall analyzing it in detail.

Q: Now, you understand that there's hold still behavior for many Samsung phones that are accused of infringement; right?

A: There appears to be, at least according to Samsung, similar hold still behavior only in the gallery application for some, but not all, of the 21 accused devices, and only in the gallery application.
The two... thingies that are being scrolled are in the gallery application and the contacts application. I make a leap of speculation, here, and guess that the gallery application displays one or more pictures created on the display by applying several algorithms sequentially to the binary signs in a file (PolR explains that the 'ones' and 'noughts' in the file are not symbols because they don't symbolise anything to a human being).

I guess the contacts application displays the results of a contact database query which produces one or more filtered records along with labels for the displayed data.

The transcript does not make it clear what the scrolling thingies are, so let's have a bit of a look at the patent.
Abstract:

At least certain embodiments of the present disclosure include an environment with user interface software interacting with a software application. A method for operating through an application programming interface (API) in this environment includes transferring a set bounce call. The method further includes selling an least one of maximum and minimum bounce values. The set bounce call causes a bounce ofa scrolled region in an opposite direction of a scroll based on a region past an edge oflhe scrolled region being visible in a display region at the end of the scroll.

The Claims:

1. A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a [smartphone or touchpad with multi-fingered gesture detection]...

15 [smartphone or touchpad with multi-fingered gesture detection]

16. The apparatus as in claim 15, further comprising: means for rubberbanding a scrolling region displayed within the window by a predetermined maximum displacement when the scrolling region exceeds a window edge based on the scroll.

17. The apparatus as in claim 15, further comprising; means for attaching scroll indicators to a content edge of the window.

18. The apparatus as in claim 15. further comprising; means for attaching scroll indicators to the window edge.

19. The apparatus as in claim l5, wherein determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation is based on receiving a drag user input for a certain time period.
You will notice that I did not waste any time giving the full text. The terms in the claims are meaningless unless you have a smartphone or touchpad with multitouch gestures. Further, this has all the specificity of the Microsoft OOXML OSI standard. All of the terms used are 'what the Apple iPhone does'. They are only meaningful if you are fully aware of how smartphones are used.

Note what claim 1. says. It is a machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a [smartphone or touchpad with multi-fingered gesture detection]... sorry about that - I get so bored typing this rubbish. So, how do you implement a gesture or a scroll on a smartphone? If you were not a smartphone geek and a coder, would that mean anything to you? I will show, later, that the patent is not on the code or the hardware: it is on the method. The method functionality in the patent is not technology of any kind.

To paraphrase Bilski, it is an abstract method idea limited to the particular technological environment of a smartphone or touchpad computer with a touchscreen and the ability to detect and respond to multi-finger gestures. So, quite limited, then!

Moving on, since claims means prizes, let's do claims. Can you see any souce code or APIs forming part of the claims. Are the claims functions actually software claims functions? The abstract is hand-waving. It is saying that it wants to monopolise what software writers do when they code for applications that run on smartphones and touchtablets.

Further, it is saying that it wants to monopolise certain APIs that can be used by the software writer. The claims fail to do this. They are abstract functionality which is implemented by one skilled in the software arts as described by Funar v. GE.

Repeating part of my quote, above;
THE WITNESS: As you can see, you move to the right, you get to the edge, it shows beyond the edge, and then it bounces back.
Read the claims, including the (apparently apposite) Claim 19. What do you get to the edge of? What is it that you move to the right? What are the window edges called for in the claims? Do the gallery application and the contacts application appear in their own windows? If they don't, do they fail to infringe on claim 19.

As the claims are not claims about software code, why is source code required to determine whether claim 19 has been infringed?

A good few of you are software writing experts. If you did not know how smartphones were commonly used and had never coded for one, would you be able to read the source code for one of the accused devices (let alone all of them) and determine whether the text that resulted in the executable code would infringe on any part of any of the claims? Given the full source code, would you be limited to reading the comments and hoping that your interpretation was what the claims claimed?

As software writing experts you will be impressed by the skill of the software coders that implemented these swipes, scrolls and gestures. The patent is not on the software skills required as made clear by Funar v. GE. It is on the method.

U.S.C. §101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Putting aside the skill of writing the software, what in claim 19 is new and what is it that makes it useful? How novel an invention can it be when subtle changes render it un-infringed? 'But if, indeed, the finger has left the screen and it's holding still, that hold still behavior does not meet claim 19.'

This is like the Oracle patents. It uses phrases that software coders would recognises as part of the art of writing software. Software coders might see the patent as a very clever bit of coding that should be protected. However, the patent is not about software: it is about the invention of waving your fingers on or near a touch sensitive display. Don't let all those helpful software flow charts in the patent disclosures mislead you. This is an attempt at a monopoly on handwaving... finger wiping.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

coaching witnesses
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 01:19 AM EST
Reading the expert testimony makes me think the experts were coached to
give the most obfuscated and obtuse answers possible as a tactic to run up
Samsung's time. Is that possible or legal? You're supposed to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth but that doesn't seem to be what they do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy Christmas to all at Groklaw (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 04:20 AM EST
.

[ 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 )