|
Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
There doesn't seem to be anything rational about the trial.
It almost makes me wonder if the judge was trying to get it overturned by the
appeals court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
Please put 'Korrection -> correction' in the title.
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
On-topic comments will be sucked into a black hole.
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
...for your contribution in the interests of Justice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
For easy reference, please put the URL or a link to the news pick in the
comment.
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
Thanks.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
Judges say things like this to juries all the time in their instructions:
"If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the overall appearance
of an accused Samsung design is substantially the same as the overall appearance
of the claimed Apple design patent, and that the accused design was made, used,
sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, you must find that
the accused design infringed the claimed design."
The article explains that this statement is, in fact, false. The judge must
have known that her statements was false because it was incomplete. That makes
it a lie.
Even if it was more accurate, the "you must find" bugs me. MUST? In
the entire history of the United States, has a juror ever been executed or
thrown in jail merely for voting for acquittal? It is just another lie.
For all the talk about respect for juries, it is pretty clear to me that judges
hate them and cannot stand the idea that a jury would think for itself.
Personally, I think the jury would have been much less likely to run away eith
erroneous argument if it thought its members were allowed to think instead of
trying to follow irrational laws and instructions.
How do we get judges to stop lying to juries????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- lying to the jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- lying to the jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT
- This is not lying. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Is this really the law in US? This is from the #452 docket (part 3) mentioned
above.
"The test for anticipation [and obviousness by implication] is the same as
the test for infringement, the only difference being that the court compares the
patented design with the alleged anticaptory reference rather than the accused
infringing product...".
So by implication something that is so obviously obvious that it is not worth
mentioning, IS NOT OBVIOUS?
But somebody who is "innovate enough" to patent it, gets the patent![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Obvious standard? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
I thought the law was "somebody skilled in the art" rather than
"somebody skilled at being a pedant", lol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
An important point that I think is missed is that both parties participate in
creating the jury instructions. If you look at the docket, you can see tons of
filings from both parties relating to the jury instructions.
The docket...
Sure, claim construction is the court's job, but
unless Samsung timely
objected to this issue, Samsung has already waived it and
cannot appeal it.
Another point, the leading case on claim construction
of design patents (Egyptian Goddess)
makes clear that the district court has
very broad latitude in construing design
patents. In that case, the Federal
Circuit stated:
One of the issues raised by this court in
its order granting en banc review was
whether trial courts should conduct claim
construction in design patent cases.
While this court has held that trial
courts have a duty to conduct claim
construction in design patent cases, as in
utility patent cases, see Elmer, 67
F.3d at 1577, the court has not prescribed
any particular form that the claim
construction must take. To the contrary, the
court has recognized that design
patents "typically are claimed as shown in
drawings," and that claim
construction "is adapted accordingly." Arminak &
Assocs., Inc., 501 F.3d at
1319; see also Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 162
F.3d at 1116. For that reason,
this court has not required that the trial court
attempt to provide a detailed
verbal description of the claimed design, as is
typically done in the case of
utility patents. See Contessa Food Prods., Inc.,
282 F.3d at 1377 (approving
district court's construction of the asserted claim
as meaning "a tray of a certain
design as shown in Figures
1-3").[1]
I am not sure if you can read that to mean that
the court must talk about
functional elements in claim construction. I think
it means the exact opposite.
Mainly, that as long as the court does claim
construction (which it did), that is
enough for claim construction. Thus, I
think Apple will argue that the court did
not err because it did not have to
construe the functional elements of the
design patents. Of course, if
something was not construed, then it follows that
it would not appear in the
jury instructions.
Too bad so much was sealed in this case. This entire
issue would be much
more clear if we could read the claim construction
briefings.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
[T]his case offers the added twist of a district court that applied
a proper claim interpretation at the preliminary injunction stage and then
abandoned that claim interpretation in issuing its Final Jury Instructions,
without explanation. I won't claim to completely understand this
paper and realize that it is an academic treatment, not a news report, but the
question that jumps out at me is, "What was Samsung doing, then?"
Judge
Koh didn't write the jury instructions in a vacuum. Samsung and Apple were
arguing tooth and nail over them. Did Samsung allow this change to occur without
arguing against it? If Samsung argued against it, how did it get implemented
without some sort of explanation to Samsung? If it was implemented without
justification, why haven't we heard more about this until now? We all know about
Samsung making a huge deal about what it wasn't allowed to show in court thanks
to Samsung providing information too late, but at least the court provided an
explanation for that, yet it sounds as if this might have been an even bigger
deal and without any explanation, so why didn't Samsung scream even louder about
this? Without knowing those things, I have trouble trusting the conclusions of
the paper. (I'm not saying it's wrong, but it doesn't seem consistent with what
I know of Samsung's behavior.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
Nearly everybody is aware by now of the Apple/Samsung
patent battles. Among
them, if they know nothing else, many
have at least heard of two things: There
is some
controversy about Apple claiming a design patent on
"rectangles with
rounded corners", and they aware there is
some controversy surrounding the
fairness in recent trial
between Apple and Samsung, whether due to jury
misconduct or
something else. These two issues have become central and the
defining features of the conflict.
Dr. Redano's thesis directly
addresses the first of these
these features, and leaves us with a big question
mark on
the second.
The following (edited) quote summarizes Dr.
Redano's
thoughts on the issue of Apple's design patent on
"rectangles with
rounded corners"...
An important aspect of the functionality
analysis in the invalidity context is that it applies to
"the overall
appearance" of the patented design, as opposed
to functional elements of the
patented design. Thus, it
is possible that a design patent directed to a
design
consisting of eight functional elements and two ornamental
elements
might be found by the trier of fact to have an
"overall appearance" that is not
functional.
By failing to expressly identify non-ornamental
(functional)
features of Apple’s design patents and instruct the jury
that
such features were not to be considered in its
infringement analysis, the
district court materially, and
perhaps fatally, prejudiced Samsung’s
non-infringement
defenses.
Above, (besides having
abbreviated Dr. Redano's
arguments), I have highlighted a line with bold font
that
should have spelled doom for Apple's design patent, because
Apple
design philosophy eliminates ornamentation.
Nothing remains but the
functional elements of the design
at issue. Unfortunately for Apple, their
design philosophy
doesn't lend itself to design patents on specific elements.
Only when you combine together each individual component of
the endless
elements of hardware, software, and packaging
that make up an iPhone do you
finally get something that
says "Apple".
Apple's
"form follows
function" design philosophy is clean,
orderly, and based on lines, curves,
bevels and simplicity.
It is heavily influenced by 1960s Braun products.
Jobs wanted his products to be simple
above all else.
It must have been a huge frustration for Apple to have
to
defend its design patent on "rectangles with rounded
corners" when they
would have been well aware that it is, in
in itself, indefensible. Being
indefensible, the only way
Apple could survive jury scrutiny of it design
patent was to
have the jury ignore functional elements of the design. How
the
jury ended up without instruction on this matter, in
spite of the fact that the
district court had promised to
give such instruction earlier, leaves us with
this big black
question mark hovering over the question of fairness of the
Apple/Samsung trial. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
Lots of people blame the judge, i for one do not. This case
is very complex, lots of tiny stuff like this every court
date goes by. Both parties are fighting tooth and nail. you
can really see how apple really gives nothing up. On these
kind of issues it really becomes hard to keep track of all
this. It probably slipped through because apple was arguing
some other ridiculous thing, or samsung was making some
other major demand, through all the fighting things fall
under the radar. I wonder how anybody would stay on top of
everything in the trial. If its not something today, it definitely something
tomorrow, and 5 things the day after
that... those things sure add up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|