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 Thread | 326 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Rules in Apple v. Samsung - No Willfulness, No Enhanced Damages for Apple but No New Trial Either ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:50 AM EST
"A billion dollars for infringement that was officially not willful. Your
US patent law at work."

Using (at least some) patents found to be invalid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:58 AM EST
Please post Title as error->correction

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:01 AM EST
Please do not stray on topic

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:03 AM EST
Please include a link to the Newspick you're commenting on

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Transcripts
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:07 AM EST
See 'Comes v. MS' in the TOC sidebar

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translation of Judge Koh's Ruling
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:30 AM EST
This whole steaming pile is going to be appealed anyway; why should I shovel any
part of it now. I'll deal with it when it gets remanded.

Maybe smart phones will be obsolete by then and everyone will just move on.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And now we await the iTrolls
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:06 AM EST
They are bound to come after this news.

Let's try to roast 'em good. And then ignore them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The amazing bit in my opinion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:16 AM EST
The amazing bit in my opinion is how Judge Koh tries guessing what the figures set by the jury are supposed to mean, what she thinks they must have been for, and how to best interpret meaning into them.

If she needs to second-guess the jury on almost the whole award stuff (and that after the jury had to be told where they awarded money for non-infringement), the probability that the jury even thought about those issues is minuscule.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Rules in Apple v. Samsung - No New Trial - Oh well plenty to still appeal
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 04:22 AM EST

:-|

[ Reply to This | # ]

a structured electronic document
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 05:18 AM EST
First, my general comment: what PJ said about the jury and prior art.

About patent validity:
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including:

  • instructions for displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content;
  • instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;
  • instructions for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;
  • instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;
  • instruction for, while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box;
    and
  • instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.
  • Request: Claims construction, please, on 'a structured electronic document', 'box', 'first and second box', 'enlarging and translating the structured electronic document', 'instructions for'.

    Comment: What I always say about 'documents' 'displayed' on a computer and the claiming of abstract ideas based on a visual illusion associated with abstract hand-waving motions. What the blue blazes is 'gesture detection'? Any, old abstract gesture? Does it make any difference to the novelty or usefulness, what the gesture is?

    Oh, and while I'm at it, the USPTO guides, thusly:
    Does your Invention Fall Within § 101 Judicial Exceptions – Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena and Abstract Ideas?

    Determining whether the claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter) does not end the analysis because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as mathematical algorithms), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible and therefore are excluded from patent protection.
    So, which is this invention? Is it process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? If it is a novel and useful machine, what does the machine do that makes it novel and useful enough to be awarded a patent and how do I distinguish the novel and additionally useful invention from an otherwise identical 'portable electronic device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors'?

    For instance, let's consider a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone and a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone. Why is the former a new and useful machine and the latter, not? What makes one a new and useful improvement on the other?. Why is this invented, mobile machine novel and useful when a non-mobile, but otherwise identical machine would not be novel or useful?

    It occurs to me that I am not skilled in the art of owning a mobile smart phone. Perhaps that is why I cannot see the use of this new and useful machine. If someone shows me a machine comprising a frame with an external handle and internal gearing wherein a user waves flags of all nations on rotating the handle my question would be 'what's so useful about that?'. If it squeezed excess water out of clothing after the weekly wash, then I could see some utility in that. Why is the flag-waving so useful that it is patent-worthy?

    If the same person tells me that they have not actually invented the machine, but just the handle-winding, flag-waving function, I would tell them that the USPTO would never award a patent on that function, because they only award patents on actual machine inventions and not the abstract idea of a machine.

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Being wrong is difficult to admit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:48 AM EST
    This is all terribly unsurprising. The trial and eventually the truths that
    came out after the trial shows the whole thing was pretty badly handled.
    "What's the point of a trial?" was the line that showed what was going
    to happen here. And a judge could not and should not issue after-trial rulings
    based on any new information. The show is the show after all. Should a movie
    reviwer change the review after finding out the lead actor is gay? No.

    For this judge to fail to call for a new trial is to shamelessly refuse to admit
    shame. For this judge to accept the existence of prior art as proof of
    non-wilful infringement while at the same time allowing the jury's findings
    which were based on incorrect law. Well, this fits though... the jury's
    verdicts came before its admission of how it came to its verdict did it not?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Judicial economy?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST
    After the jury ruling, it seems that the orders/rulings are all
    about NOT having to do another jury trial.

    Apple wants triple damages due to will fullness, but that would
    require another trial to separate the damages. Ahh, rule
    Samsung wasn't willful.

    Samsung wants patents tossed due to whatever, but that
    would require another trial to separate damages. Ahhh, rule
    those patents are not invalid even if the USPTO now finds them
    invalid.

    OK. So it seems that way, but it is not necessarily so.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    And they build a crooked country.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST
    "America always do the right thing after trying all other alternatives
    first."
    Do we have time to wait?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Amazingly, people still defend the US civil jury system
    Authored by: Jim Olsen on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:47 AM EST

    An unsophisticated jury has disregarded a weighty, dense set of legal instructions and a voluminous record of technical evidence to fulfill the foreman's desire to punish a perceived patent violator. We now see that the judge validates and cherishes the verdict almost as if it were handed down from God on Mount Sinai, graven on stone tablets.

    Despite this and other travesties of justice that make civil lawsuits into roulette games with billion-dollar payouts, we know that defenders of the status quo will ensure that the USA continues to stand alone in the world in preserving the civil jury system, even in impossibly complex lawsuits such as this one.

    All hail the USA legal system, finest in the world!

    ---
    Jim ---

    Success in crime always invites to worse deeds. - Lord Coke

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Judge Koh - Status Quo
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:45 AM EST
    I think the takeaway from her rulings here is that she is
    just trying to be done so this thing can make its way up to
    the Circuit. She definitely contorted some things in
    justifying the jury's findings, but it seems clear that she
    started from a mental jumping off point of: "What do I have
    to do to not change any results or incur any more
    briefing/motions," so she eliminated willfulness so the
    actual damages wouldn't increase, and upheld anything that
    would have resulted in a lowering of the damages too.

    The judge just wants to be done.

    That's my unprofessional guess anyway.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Least Surprising Thing Ever?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM EST
    Briefly put, this is unsurprising. Judges do not like to
    overrule jury verdicts. Here's a brief overview.

    In Federal Court, parties routinely file 50(b)/59 motions
    after a jury trial. Why? To preserve appellate rights. These
    are almost *never* granted. Why? Because unless you can
    argue that you're going to win as a matter of law, you're
    going to lose. Here's the problem- the judge has most likely
    already seen these arguments before, in your summary
    judgement and in your 50(a) motions (and maybe a prior
    motion to dismiss). *And the law hasn't changed*.

    Does this mean you'll always lose? No. Sometimes you can
    point to something specific- say, a particular piece of
    evidence that was necessary to support a verdict was never
    introduced to the jury. Maybe the judge will suddenly decide
    that, hey, I feel differently about the law. Maybe you can
    point to something specific (a problem with jury
    instructions) But it's rare. And a remittitur (reduction in
    damages) is also extremely rare. The law is about rules and
    presumptions, and these work against parties trying to
    overturn jury verdicts at the D.C. level.

    Juries can be a crapshoot in civil litigation (which is why
    so many cases settle- risk/reward). There is an assumption
    that if you lose the case, then the fault is on the party (I
    am nutshelling here, but this is adequate for this); each
    party is in control of the case (the evidence, the themes,
    the "story") that they put in front of the jury and what
    they chose to emphasize. It is not enough to say that a jury
    was wrong- it must be shown that no reasonable jury could
    have found the way they did, given the evidence adduced at
    the trial.

    I think the appellate case (assuming no settlement) will be
    fascinating, but I don't think jury issues will figure
    prominently in it. But hey- I could be wrong.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Run Away Jury
    Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM EST
    Judge Koh realizes that the jury went wrong but spends an large portion of her
    rulings trying to defend their verdict.

    I think she decided that since whatever she ruled both parties were likely to
    appeal, she simply kicked the decision upstairs. If the Appeals court rules that
    a new trial is in order they will also at least narrow the issues and give her
    (or whoever the trial judge is) some direction.

    ---
    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 | # ]

    I see 2 mistakes in her ruling.
    Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:17 PM EST
    Well, more actually. But the other mistakes are her not admitting the trial was
    unfair, because she's passing the football to the Appeals court, so she can
    recuse herself when it comes back. She wants nothing more to do with it.

    So I'm going to focus on two things are actual mistakes, and things she's
    glossing over to get rid of it.

    Thing 1) The '163 indefiniteness. If and only if, you support the ridiculous
    notion that software is patentable, then her ruling here is perplexing as to how
    wrong it is. Let me explain.

    In software there is no room for "substantially centered". You can't
    begin to center an object on a screen without knowing the approximate dimensions
    of the screen. But there is no way to grab and "approximate"
    screensize. You can programmatically request the "actual" screensize,
    and using those set the exact coordinates to center an object on the screen.
    This is a pure math thing. Yes one could write an algorithm to fuzzify the
    coordinates so that the object varies on how precisely centered it is.

    In fact, based on what I've read the only reasonable interpretation by one
    skilled in the art is that the patent intentionally fuzzifies the centering
    logic and thus only approximately centers objects inside the screen. So you'd
    not necessarily ever see a box drawn exactly in the same spot twice.

    But, I've only ever seen this kind of logic in practical joke programs,
    installed on unsuspecting coworkers machines so they can't click a window that
    pops up, because everytime they move the mouse towards it, it moves to another
    random location.

    So the judge was wrong here. Software is math, but drawing boxes on a screen is
    pure Algebra and is exact by nature and definition. This is not Shrodinger's Cat
    we are talking about. A screen has consistent, unchanging, and exact dimensions,
    and an exact center point*, for any given object and screen resolution.

    *Which may take at most one of two possible positions, if the true center lies
    half way between two pixels. But you can't called that "substantially
    centered", as either point could rightly be called the precise center. It
    would be a matter of personal preference, as the position on either side could
    equally claim the center point.

    and Thing 2) I can't be certain, because I haven't read the patent but there was
    talk of a "one-bit" field. In Samsung's patent (0/1), and in a
    "prior art" patent a "v bit field" with the value
    "V". Well, "V", can't be represented as one bit in a binary
    computer that uses 0 and 1 as the two values. A "V" can be represented
    in a "one byte" field. Now maybe someone made a mistake, or maybe it
    really describes it as a bit field. But one thing is certain it can't be a value
    of "v" or "V" in any standard commercially available binary
    logic computer.

    Now there are certainly other issues I see in her ruling, but these are ones she
    is being "willfully blind" of, to put it in legal jargon.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How long?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:58 PM EST
    How soon can we expect to be hearing about the appeals in this case? There are
    a lot of eyes watching this one. I suspect they will not wish to delay it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Appeals court denies injunction rehearing
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:11 AM EST

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 20 13/02/01/apple_loses_bid_to_ban_s masung_galaxy_nexus

    "A US appeals court has denied Apple's request for a rehearing of an injunction, instituted last June but reversed last October, that would have stopped Samsung from selling its year-old Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US."

    No reason given. If I was Apple, and the appeals court just cut me dead like that I'd be a little concerned about what they are thinking.

    [ 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 )