|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Next to last section jumbled? - Authored by: stegu on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:25 AM EDT
- ApplevSamsung-1991Ex7.pdf - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- conversion to non-caps - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex16.pdf link is broken - Authored by: SLi on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- remittitur -> ? - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- remittitur -> ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT
- News pick link broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
- Later Exhibits to Docket#1990 are 404 (4AM ET Tues)(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- Docket #1987 is 404...(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 04:20 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- NVIDIA to offer up documentation for Tegra graphics core to prove its commitment to open-source - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:40 AM EDT
- Have Apple Made a Huge Mistake In Starting the Patient War? - Authored by: dobbo on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT
- Apparently it's now a thing to have a go at Apple over their maps - memes away! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Another - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- a few more - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- The shine is off the Apple - Authored by: DCFusor on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- German patent injunction madness: Nike v. Adidas - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Shuttleworth: "we have root. You do trust us with your data already" - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- I'm good with Gentoo - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- Shuttleworth: "we have root. You do trust us with your data already" - Authored by: dio gratia on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- lubuntu != ubuntu ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- Oh, come on - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- launchpad removes bug report #1054776 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- It's a legit point - if badly worded - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:20 PM EDT
- Boneheaded - Authored by: matth on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:56 AM EDT
- Trust Shuttleworth? Not so much. - Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- BS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- BS? - Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- Trust Shuttleworth? Not so much. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Xbuntu is nice and yeah I trust Mark and the Team. - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Class :-) Waiting for an iPhone 5...for no reason - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers U.S. science - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Judge rules Rambus destroyed evidence in case against Hynix - The patent troll legend grows - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- MozCamp Warsaw: Design Principles Behind Firefox OS UX - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT
- Any news on Cahn's final report? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT
- Now Trade secret dispute over tablets - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT
- No plans for Google maps on iPhone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Open-access deal for particle physics - Consortium brokers agreement with 12 journals - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Apple: The accuser becomes the accused - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- Oh no! Yet another court case over tablet computers! - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- Microsoft data center pollutes, then wastes millions of watts to avoid paying fine - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- apple maps - OpenMap licence? - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Bad Pharma: account of pharmaceutical industry scientific fraud is readable and rigorous - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Adobe - Announcing Source Code Pro - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
Some interesting quotes:
Claim 50 uses such a term of degree,
requiring
that the first and second "boxes of content" be
"substantially
centered" on the touch-screen display. JX
1046.49 (emphasis added.) [...]
There are no tests,
parameters, or other criteria for determining whether such
a
box is or
is not "substantially
centered."
Indeed, the indefiniteness of the asserted
patents is evident from the patents themselves
(JX1040, JX1041, JX1042, JX1043)
patents that the Court
itself has previously observed are
inconsistent and
sloppy. 7/24/12 Hearing Tr. at 20:19-21:4
("[W]ith several of these design
patents, there's unfortunate inconsistency or sloppiness in
how it's done. . .
. What am I supposed
to make of this other than, you know, there may have been
some unfortunate prosecution here?").
The views of the D‘889 patent make it
impossible to know
which way the device should be
oriented and where certain
environmental features should go.
And so on... in exhibit 1988.
Essentially, Samsung is
picking apart Apple's patent applications, for any
items
that are not consistent with patent application rules (using
broken/solid/thin/dotted lines consistently, claim language,
etc.). ~cd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:50 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
In the UK there have been cases when a member of the jury has been slightly less
than honest about things applicable to a trial before being sworn in. When this
is found out (either during or after the trial) the dishonest juror normally
ends up standing in front of the beaks answering some very pointed questions.
More often or not the juror ends up being sent down for a month or more in order
to reflect on the error of their ways; this is normally treated as Contempt
of Court, but I remember one particularly bad case in which the jury member
was sent down for Perjury. Either way the dishonest juror ends up with a
criminal record and a heavy fine, and a mistrial is declared so everything has
to start over. My question is - in the US legal system could the jury foreman
face similar sanctions? If so then he might come to regret his motor-mouth. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
"Obviously, he's not biased"
"No, he didn't act as an expert witness"
"Even if he did, Samsung's cited cases don't show there is any
remedy."
???
Should be fun to watch the dance, as long as you're in the right frame of mind.
Otherwise, might be very angry-making.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
I think the core of the story lies in this case.
Was it possible that people from Samsung were witnesses?
I didn't see this mentioned in voir dire at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
This whole situation has had me thinking about juries.
I have been through voir dire several times, but never been
put on a jury. I suspect that I never will because I
wouldn't want to be on a jury with a judge who would be
willing to have me for a juror. Ok seriously I don't think I
will ever bew on a jury because of so many things that would
make each side wary of me. I think ( seriously ) that the
smartest lawyer is the one who could trick the other lawyer
into getting rid of me.
For the most part juries have a hard thankless job, where
they put in a lot of hours, for very little pay under many
uncomfortable conditions. They deserve our respect and
gratitude, but the events in this trial caused me to think a
bit.
Certainly a real jury, a legitimate jury deserves our
respect and gratitude, but does a false one? Don't parties
in a civil or criminal matter deserve to be heard by real
juries?
Certainly all due respect should be given a real jury, but
shouldn't it be a responsibility of the court to validate
that the jury was a real jury. If questions arise shouldn't
the court seriously investigate those questions in any way
then can?
I'm thinking of something similar to double jeopardy, where
a person can be tried a second time if they bribed the judge
or took jurors family members hostage. The argument there is
that jeopardy never attached, b ecause the defendent was
never actually in jeopardy.
I've heard of drunk jurors and sleeping jurors and all sorts
of other stupidities, and it really bothers me to let those
verdicts stand.
Mouse the Lucky Dog
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
From the article:
THE COURT: okay. Welcome back. Please take a
seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the
questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very
close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a
defendant, or as a witness?
Let's see. On the first row, who would raise
their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr. Hogan.
PROSPECTIVE
JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for
me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was
dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one
for that matter.
From the table of
authorities:
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan
Where does
this case fit with the foreman answers? I don't find it there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
In the early 90s I was on a Jury in Las Vegas where a woman flipped her car and
blamed it on a truck pulling in front of her. All witnesses testified that the
truck was at least 2 car lengths ahead of her and never came closer. But the
jury foreman convinced everyone that the truck (commercially owned) was at least
10% responsible and since the damages (of no documented or visible injuries)
where worth $300,000 dollars, the verdict should be for $30,000. I still am
outraged at this manipulation by the jury foreman to this day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: john-from-ct on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated
for the first time by
South Korean hardware manufacturer LG
Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in
Hanover, Germany
this week. The device was demonstrated running on the latest
version of the Linux kernel, 2.4. First unveiled in January,
the iPAD is aimed
at home users wanting Internet access and
multimedia thrills without all the
bells and whistles of a
conventional PC.
from:
Clicky to
news article. --- Just another greybeard
geek! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
No, really. Please. Get over yourselves.
Remember the Oracle v. Google
trial? That jury also made a number of
questionable statements post-judgement.
One of the most damning, that
mysteriously nobody seems to have picked up on,
was a
juror's opinion that "more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for
limits on
openness. Ie they were pro google." [1]
Uhhh, excuse me?
"Limits on openness"?!? Was "limits on openness" ever
supposed to be a
consideration? Was it ever mentioned in the Judge's instructions that they
should
consider "limits on openness"? Was "limits on openness" a matter of fact
to be
decided by the jury? Was it on the jury form? Is Android even "open"
outside of
Google's propaganda?!? [2]
Of course, that's not the only
indication they didn't "get the issues". Remember,
this jury was told to assume
APIs were copyrightable and "was split 9-3 for
google on copyright fair
use"[3]! Wholesale copying is fair use?! Not to mention
the fact that they
thought the line-for-line duplication of rangeCheck was not
copying, which even
the Judge had to overturn.
Where was the outrage back then? Oh, they
returned a decision you all
agreed
with, so that's just fine and dandy!
Compared to that jury, this Velvin Hogan fella comes off as downright
reasonable. About the only thing he may have been wrong about is that Apple
didn't infringe Samsung's '460 patent, and personally I think he was wrong
insofar as the Doctrine of Equivalents applies. That's worth, what, a few
million in
damages to Samsung? I can't find any statements from him as
to
dispensing
advice to fellow jurors about patent law... only opinions
about the
validity
and
infringement of the patents -- as the court asked him
to.
[1] https
://twi
tter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392
[2] Open source is
not exactly "open". See: SkyHook lawsuit, Acer/Aliyun. Keep
in mind
non-Google-approved forks of AOSP are not officially and legally, in the
trademark sense,
"Android". Android is, ironically, about as "open" as Java
is.
[3]
https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the jury's decision - Authored by: tknarr on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- For a start, there was no wholesale copying - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- #2 - Google & Acer/Aliyun - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the jury's decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Florian? Is that you? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the jury's decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the Oracle vs Google jury's decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Oh dear - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- Actually, you're the one who is butthurt - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- A reasoned reply - Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
After reading most of the comments to this article it got me thinking - it would
make sense, wouldn't it? According to reports isn't he an IT guy, with an
apparent ego? After the end of trial if he Googled his name surely he would
have found this site, if he wasn't aware of it already. I think it would be
human nature (for many humans) to want to clear their name, to write things
defending that "dear ol' Hogan guy."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
From the Court ... "basically you obviously will bring your life
experience to your role as a juror"
I have heard nothing in the statements from the other jurors other
than descriptions of what the Court itself had already acknowledged
as to what resources this juror had to offer his potential fellow jurists.
I have heard nothing at all about what particular instruction(s) from
the court which he and/or the jury disregarded.
The court appears to fully expect him; regardless, to help his fellow
jurors understand the details of the various infrastructures he had
personal knowledge about.
The verbiage that follows, " but would you be able to set that aside,
your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based
solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted
during the trial?", was obviously not meant to cancel this Court
acknowledged function within the jury. It's unfortunate the the court
chose the words "previous experience" instead of something like
"previous outcome". The Courts choice of words enables abusers of
language to redefine the statement for their own purposes; as they
most certainly have.
The final statement of the Court to this juror was as to whether the
(eventual foreman) would follow the Courts instructions. Which
instructions, specifically, where ignored? What specifically did he do
with his fellow jurors that was not part of "bring your life experience
to your role as a juror"?
Not grokin' your Groking
You would have intentionally ignore the contextual meaning of the
word "experience" to say that the foreman could use NOTHING from
his previous experience to inform his role in the jury.
Both sides had the opportunity to give the guy a no go. It didn't
happen. Lets move on here[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
That is, both Apple and Samsung have a filing with a *long* list of trial
excerpts, which end with the senior partner of the respective law firms signing
off that the attached are true and correct copies, and saying he is prepared to
testify on those excerpts?
What's the purpose of such filings?
(My non-lawyer epidermis is showing!)(grin)
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
Samsung goes after jury
foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict
In an exclusive
interview Tuesday about Samsung's secret new allegations, Hogan, an engineer,
confirmed that he was a party in two cases cited in Samsung's brief, a 1993 case
from municipal court in Santa Cruz titled Seagate Technology v. Hogan and a 1993
federal bankruptcy case titled In re Velvin R. Hogan. According to Hogan, when
Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new
employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado
home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate
claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud,
Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect
his house.
Hogan is being simple with the truth when
explaining who sued who. Seagate is the Plaintiff and Hogan is the defendant.
Hogan filed a cross complaint. Go to Santa Cruz Case
Inquiry and search under Court Case Number => MS930919, then click on the
highlighted number in the listing to see the details. At the top of the page,
click on Case Report to see everything at once.
This may not be a big
deal but on the other hand, it is consistent with Hogan seeing things that are
important only from his perspective. That may also be what got him into
friction with Seagate. This could get interesting. If this is a character
trait/flaw of his, he won't stop defending himself because he can't and he will
never admit that he's wrong. Also, someone like this could never follow the
rules of court if it is not to their liking and Samsung would have every reason
to have the verdict overturned and a new trial.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: miltonw on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
I was called to jury duty and was selected to sit on a case last
week.
While this case was not nearly as important as this one, I noticed
the following instruction from the judge:
"In your deliberations, you may
only use evidence that was presented in court. You may not rely on
information from elsewhere, including your own experiences."
This was,
rather obviously, boilerplate instructions that the judge gives for all cases --
and it is the law. Those who would claim that you should be able to rely
on your own "evidence" are not thinking it through. The "facts" that you
might think are applicable and important have not been vetted by the judge nor
have they been properly challenged by the attorneys.
You simply
cannot take the law into your own hands and decide your "evidence"
should be included, as Hogan has. It is not justice by any definition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
From Fosspatents.com:
What I like about Apple's motion is that Apple is at the same mindful of the
jurors' privacy and not at all afraid to discuss in public what needs to be
addressed because of Samsung's initiative. I continue to be very skeptical of
Samsung's chances of winning a new trial on the grounds of misconduct. It
wouldn't even be easy to hold a hearing at which the jurors have to testify.
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) allows only some very limited exceptions
under which jurors may serve as witnesses on what happened in the same
case. As Professor Brian Love noted on Twitter, even "[e]vidence jurors
drank
heavily [and] used marijuana [and] cocaine at lunch breaks [is apparently] not
enough", pointing to the pretty astounding Tanner v. United States affair
(Wikipedia summary, full text of Supreme Court decision). If you're looking for
a story on a jury that really misbehaved in unbelievable ways, Tanner is an
example next to which anything Samsung appears to allege in Apple v.
Samsung pales in comparison, if there can be any comparison at all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|