decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

109 pages | 42 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Post Corrections in this thread
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title may be useful.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung, 109 pages ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
Despite being paid tens or hundreds of thousands to testify, the jury can ignore everything they said, if they feel they should. Note the "reasons given for the opinion" could include that they got paid a bundle.

This instruction is toothless because every expert in this case "got paid a bundle" for their services, right?

It will then come down to who the "better liar" is.

It reminds me of the Oracle v. Google case where "experts" blatantly lied about the facts under oath!

Imagine, an expert saying that a link is symbolic yet it wasn't....a pure matter of fact. It brings to question why our justice system allows this kind of behavior.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
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 Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
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

Hint: Avoid a Geeklog bug that posts some links broken by putting a space on
either side of the text of the link, as in

<a href=""> See the spaces? </a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

109 pages
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
I wonder if there's a juror strong enough to tear this in half and
throw it back, saying 'We find nobody wins anything, both lose.
Take your toys home and don't come near the court again.'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcripts here
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
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 | # ]

"persons of ordinary skill in the field"
Authored by: arnotsmith on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT
Were the jurors selected to be "persons of ordinary
skill in the field"? If not (as I suspect), how can they decide what
persons of ordinary skill in the field would know or recognise?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung, 109 pages ~pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT
Are there no technical people on Samsung's team?

It's super easy to set up a specific wifi network which has *some* websites to
visit (maybe one or two) but doesn't have a proper internet connection.

It would give the jurors the opportunity to check out the web browser and it
would make sure that the environment is tightly controlled.

Then you can use all the phones through wifi. Simple!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury destructions
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
I tried to read the instructions as though I was a jury member and had a panic
attack. After a few years of utility patents, business method patents, design
patents, trade dress and red dress, I still find what the jury has to achieve to
be mind-boggling.

Yet again we see patent madness. Samsung say they have an essential mobile
patented invention which includes a floggle-toggle on one side and Apple say
they have a mobile patented invention with humgrummits on the top. Both sides
tell the jury that if they find a floggle-toggle or a humgrummit on the opposing
sides phone then they are infringing.

But, these are just components of the invention. If the floggle-toggle or the
humgrummits are an invention in their own right then they must have a patent in
their own right. Otherwise, a patent on an auto engine would be infringed by
having wheel nuts on the axles (see what I did, there?).

Neither side seem to have shown that the asserted claims represent a definition
of a whole invention (assuming that an invention might be fully defined by
different groups of claims rather than all the claims in the patent).

Obviously, I won't discuss the realm of software patents at this point (Oi! I
heard that!).

My understanding is that one patent can only include one invention. As long as
the courts continue to instruct the jury that a patent can include lots of
inventions and that any one can be infringed in its own right, I cannot see how
the jury instructions can be valid.

That does not extend to design patents and trade dress. I think it is a
difficult set of legal concepts for the jury to consider, but a reasonable jury
should be able to resolve the questions in a satisfactory way.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Jury destructions - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
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 )