 |  | I think that the ones who do are silent on the issue because it's not a popular view point to defend these patents (or any patents). There are so many people that already had their minds made up that anything that ran counter to that viewpoint was obviously wrong, or biased, or ignorant. Or they would rather attack the jury for having to try to work through a really complicated case and coming to a different conclusion than they would have. Or maybe they'd rather just ridicule the foreman's patent... because that's helping a lot. But really, who has read the points of the patents, or the prior art? Who actually followed the case in it's entirely without cherry picking comments from media coverage? And more importantly, who actually understands patent law? I think a lot of people think that they do. This is one of the persistent issues that we'll have to deal with on HN for the next few months. Any time an Android vs. iOS article appears it polarizes this community like none other. Hopefully after a while it will all die down... Then just wait for the appeals court decision... reply |
| | I don't think you can really jump to that conclusion. Prior art may have been 'ignored' but I have a feeling that the question in the minds of the jurors was 'Did Samsung copy apple?' I think that what's probably more at issue is that the vast majority of the populace regards copying as plagiarism / and/or something that ought to be punished. eg. copying = theft = bad = you should pay a fine. The jurors are just trying to stitch legal words and technical words together to create the impression that it was judged based on the law rather than the emotional feeling that copying is bad. The jury was probably looking for evidence to find for Apple, not examining the evidence to reach a conclusion. It's a hallmark of trials by jury, it's why when the facts and emotions are on your side you pick a jury trial and when the law is on your side you pick a trial by judge. I've heard that at one point in the trial the samsung lawyer said that the design of their tablet was so different that it couldn't be copied while pointing to an iPad. A gaffe like that in connection with the idea that copying = bad is game over for Samsung in court. Errol Morris interviewed a mob lawyer about how he got a mobster off a murder charge, it's a very telling insight into how the average person's mind works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEe496IS1o reply |
| | Another juror sheds more light on what happened. The foreman's view on prior art had a big impact. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art. Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art." "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl... reply |
| | IANAL but here are two things I found interesting about the patent: 1. It doesn't claim the methods, only the systems. My (dim) understanding is that this means it isn't a software patent (a "method" patent), it's just a patent on a "system" (e.g. a device) implementing those methods. If you want to claim the algorithm, you have to claim the methods too; these claims commonly mirror the claims for the system, but with the words "a method" generally replacing "a system". 2. A claim stakes out an area of ownership; the more "and"s there are, the narrower the claim, just like a SQL query returns fewer results with the more AND phrases you include in the WHERE clause. That first long claim (on which all the others are based) could be paraphrased as "Like Tivo, but with the user additionally being able to cut/copy/paste ('edit') sections of video, but only when there's a hard drive, and only when there's a CD burner, etc." So a system that omitted or replaced one of those components would not infringe the patent. The other claims basically just preemptively stake out further sub-sections of the area of ownership so that the next guy to come along can't do what this guy did and just specialize/narrow/tweak the existing invention in those ways. reply |
| | That description may fit an Apple TV. Or any computer reply |
| | Yes, this is the sad thing. You have to prove that the jury tampered with itself or was too stupid to or too biased to do its job. Very hard to do. Alsup, in the Google trial, showed some great strategy here where he told the jury "assume you can copyright apis" while reserving to make a judgement as a matter of law on the issue later. So the Jury could say "guilty of copyright infringement" and he could say, "Thank you, oh by the way you can't copyright APIs, but if you could you would have infringed." If anything Judge Koh seemed more inclined to put as much into the juries hands as possible. reply |
| | > Wow! throughout the interview the guy looked extremely confident. I'd attribute this to Dunning-Krueger. The guy thinks he was the smartest shit in the room - "I had an aha moment, I explained it to them, I laid it out, I this, I that." reply |
| | So, if this is the new precedent, and a new processor means that we can disregard all prior art, am I correct in assuming that all I need to do to keep from infringing is to run this "ip" on a different processor in the future? (I am well aware that "legal reasoning" and real-world rationality umm... walk different paths, I'm just sayin'.) reply |
| | I believe that this link is the 460 patent that the guy mentioned: http://www.google.com/patents/US7577460 The content presented in the patent drawings at the bottom are hardware-heavy, and the patent claims and diagrams discuss voltage control, etc. I am not a patent expert, and not subject to the trial content. But I find it plausible that "processor", or phone architecture in general, might have been an important factor that differentiated Apple from the claims of Samsung's patent. reply |
| | Adding "with a voltage regulator" shouldn't be any more legit than "...but on the interwebs!". It looks to me like a snow job. Putting a camera in a smartphone and then (steady yourself) emailing the pictures you take! Seems pretty thin. So throw in a bunch of the technical details that all electronic devices have in common like voltage regulators, chip enable lines, data busses etc, and a bunch of the mundaneness of networking, like the sizes of email headers etc and now we're looking like we've got something that will sneak past an examiner or impress a layman. reply |
| | He clearly says that he wasn't assessing actual damages, but wanted to teach the offending company a lesson. The whole thing is incredibly frustrating. reply |
| | This is a disturbing farce. I realize that it is extremely difficult to appeal jury decisions, but this is getting ridiculous. Not only did he take it upon himself to ignore the court's instructions by dishing out punitive damages, but the entire reasoning behind these so-called deliberations now appear to have been completely devoid of rationality. The poster who compared the logic employed here to Vicini's "battle of wits" in the Princess Bride had it spot on. reply |
| | You cannot dismiss a jury member's own experiences from their decision making process. It was the attorney's job to vet for the jury for problematic backgrounds, and to toss out those that they were concerned about. The fact that this person was on the jury tells me that they were comfortable with his background. Also, four of the jury members work for high tech companies, including Intel, AT&T, a circuit board manufacturer, and a hard drive company. So while the foreman was unique in that he holds a patent, many of the jurists have had at least some exposure to technology products in their professional careers. reply |
| | But if they ship on MIPS, they'll have to deal with all the SGI IP... Better be safe and design a new processor architecture. reply |
| | Juries are allowed and often requested to ask questions of the judge during deliberations, but it's up to them to decide that they need that clarification. I've never been on a jury in a trial such as this, but just as you'll find in regular conversations, members of a jury will present themselves as experts and spout "facts" to back themselves up. A confident "expert" can convince a lot of people. reply |
Source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4446102
multiple sclerosis falling skies rodney king sandusky Webb Simpson Fathers Day Quotes Stevie J
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.