|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 02:38 AM EST |
"Quinn then tries to ask if anyone owns the rights to "black,
rectangular devices with rounded corners and the screen's on the top". And
Apple's Mr. Lee leaps to his feet and objects, and the objection is
sustained"
Pretty much court is granting apple a patent on that design which could apply to
about every tablet on the market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:09 AM EST |
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to scan see what needs to be corrected and to avoid duplication of
effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:10 AM EST |
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple TV - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 05:15 AM EST
- Apple TV - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 05:39 AM EST
- Apple TV - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:30 AM EST
- Peripherals for your Raspberry Pi, and much more.... - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 07:54 AM EST
- Hackers target Westboro Baptist Church - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 09:39 AM EST
- Danish cartoon: Google vs. Apple - Authored by: stovring on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST
- Introducing the Pi Store: a one-stop shop for all your Raspberry Pi needs - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 12:17 PM EST
- How to Turn a Jaguar into a Titan - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 12:34 PM EST
- Editorial: Does Windows Phone even have a chance without Google? - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 01:54 PM EST
- A kind of United Way for the Truth - The Freedom of the Press Foundation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 02:52 PM EST
- MEP: It is important to make clear that this new patent package does not cover software patents - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:36 PM EST
- Anti-Piracy Chief Patents “Pay Up or Disconnect” Scheme - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 07:01 PM EST
- We are iiNet, not King Canute - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 09:53 PM EST
- an alternative - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 02:42 AM EST
- an alternative - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:17 PM EST
- Apple's injunction request denied/Samsung Jury tampering claim denied - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 11:39 PM EST
- Say sorry to Judge Koh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:49 AM EST
- Marco Polo and the TPP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 03:33 AM EST
- Answers about Android - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:52 AM EST
- Germany orders changes to Facebook real name policy - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:11 AM EST
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:11 AM EST |
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
sidebar.
Hint: Use Preview to check that your links are ok. Avoid a Geeklog
"feature" that posts long links broken by inserting line breaks in the
URL at punctuation points such as
<a href="http://www.example.com/xyzblahblah_
blahblah/abcblahblah/defblahblah?
abcblahblah
.html">text</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 03:12 AM EST |
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST |
Of course he can't state that out flat. He is not allowed to come to
conclusions. Sort of reminds me of "To Kill a Mockingbird" again, but then that
is the gold standard of lawyering fairy tales.
"She says she
asked you to bust up a chiffarobe, is that right?"
"No suh, it
ain't."
"Then you say she's lying, boy?"
Atticus was on his feet, but
Tom Robinson didn't need him. "I don't say she's lyin', Mr. Gilmer, I say she's
mistaken in her mind."
To the next ten questions, as Mr. Gilmer reviewed
Mayella's version of events, the witness's steady answer was that she was
mistaken in her mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 04:42 AM EST |
Coming in cold and reading that text, there does seem some very odd behavior
from the judge. Samsung seem to be 'lets work out what's happened here' and
when the Apple side, though at first appearing amiable, when they realise that
they're going to be outed, clam up and turn on the outrage. VERY obvious to the
most casual reader.
And it does appear that Samsung were being punished for raising the issue of
wanting to make sure everything is done right. Good job I'm not a lawyer as I'd
be all 'Apple have photoshopped evidence before to make it appear the devices
look closer than they really are, I don't put it beneath them to tweak a device
in this case either'
Something that surely could have been easily and quickly proved if the judge had
asked to have an unopened device turned on in front of her, then ask 'why is
YOUR version different Apple?' Of course they'd spin it as different versions,
but that too gets back to the Samsung lawyers.
It's just mindnumbing how the Judge isn't following common sense or any amount
of reasonable behaviour here. Due diligence would surely ask 'well, 2 lawyers
are saying different things here, and it's kinda important, which one is lying
to me?' and after evidence tampering (again) in that court room was shown,
decisions could be made.
Makes one wonder if she's picking up on the cues from the Apple lawyers
sometimes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:36 AM EST |
'Apple Tampering' is a straw man. Koh should chill it.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 06:46 AM EST |
So if earlier phones by samsung did not infringe and were bought by customers,
then this proves the feature was not what made the users buy the phone, no?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM EST |
I believe Mr. Johnson's argument over the exhibit is based
on the comparison of Apple's start screen (which shows the
grid of icons) and one of the pages in Android that shows
the similar grid of icons (which is not the start screen).
It's a fair comparison, but perhaps misleading or
suggestive. If it is intended to argue Apple's
patent on the icon arrangement with rounded corner icons,
than it's a fair comparison. If it's intended to argue
Apple's device style patents (full face glass with rounded
corners, silver bezel edge, etc) than the icon graphics are
moot.
The fear by Samsung (and rightly so) is that staging the
graphic to show a similar screen display can be highly
suggestive of the general feel of copying, even if the minor
patent details (where you can actually find minor details
in Apple's patents) are overlooked by the jury. Try to show
the true home screens on both devices will show there are
differences, regardless of whether or not the less than
specific patents are infringed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM EST |
We don't know what actually happened other than what we have seen
reported -
The judge, like all human
beings, will have some unconscious biases, or may
have seen some
behaviour that raised her hackles (or,
again, she might not);
and was, perhaps, unconsciously looking for
confirmatory behaviour to reinforce
her
opinion. As an example, some psychologists believe that in a job
interview, the interviewer makes an
unconscious decision about a candidate in
the first minute or so, the rest
of the interview tends to
reinforce their
initial prejudices.
On Groklaw we think we know who the good and bad guys
are. It seems to
me that the law allows
(encourages?) conflation of Industrial
design rights, copyright and patents.
Some would consider that the
design of a
carbonated beverage container is the ultimate "intellectual
property" (a
horrible term), I think that this
is Apple's position - But, because we tend to
have an interest in
technology, we might
consider that an engineering patent
has more value.
Unfortunately in a commercial environment the bottle design
probably has
a higher commercial value
than engineering. "Brands" are now more
important than products - You
can buy a watch
from your handbag manufacturer,
the idea that the bag maker has no particular experience in making
watches is
almost irrelevant. The name seems to guarantee the status
(and quality?)
of the
item.
There are many examples of this:-
Gieves & Hawkes (Savile Row
gentleman's tailoring) was originally founded
in 1771, and made its reputation
in bespoke and military tailoring,
it is now owned by a Hong Kong conglomerate.
The new owners also own
Cerruti,, Kent & Curwen, Ferragamo, INTERMEZZO, and
D’URBAN.
Initially Gieves & Hawkes clothing was made out of the highest
quality
British wool, and tailored in their own premises (or for
non-bespoke
wear, at British cutters) - Now much of their product comes from
Asia.
Rolex and Tudor are owned by the same watch company:
"Montres Tudor
SA has designed, manufactured and
marketed Tudor brand watches since March 6,
1946.
Rolex founder Hans Wildorf conceived of the Tudor Watch Company to
create a product for authorized
Rolex dealers to sell that offered the
reliability and dependability of a
Rolex, but at a lower price".
(Wikipedia)
Whether a Rolex watch is 'worth' 2 - 8 times the difference in price
over a
Tudor watch is something that
an individual decides based on what is
important to them. Whether a
Swatch is better 'value' is another
matter.
Do I think Apple are on the side of the angels? No, but I
understand why
they are doing this.
Samsung was not, until recently, a brand
you associated with quality
'phones - TVs maybe -
Samsung are now thought of by
many as equivalent to Apple... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 01:15 PM EST |
When this came up during the trial I posted here that I hoped the jury
would get sealed boxes from a retail store of each model in dispute
so they could see each, fresh and clean. There were some models
of Android phones (Samsung?) that had a fixed Google search bar,
and the various home screens rotated below it, and some did not.
There were models that had bounce, or came to a fixed stop, or
the blue glow, and some were workarounds, and some just
natural development of Android. The rules of the court require the
jury to see the exhibits actually handled in the courtroom by
the attorneys, but here attorneys and judge all could not agree
on what it was they were handling or looking at. So it made sense
to my non-legal mind that the jury should get fresh retail copies,
exactly as J. Random Purchaser would get.
But then this case wasn't about avoiding confusion for the purchaser,
it was about gouging a competitor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 02:11 PM EST |
When she said that there must be many versions and releases, as a
possible explanation for the differences, he picks up that theme and runs with
it,
even though in truth, if they showed the wrong version, that would be a
serious
matter in a trial where specific versions of phones are at
issue.
When she said that there must be many versions and
releases, she went
on to display her lack of skill and experience in
allowing this source of confusion
to continue. Judge Posner would have said,
"Three models, three patents, choose
wisely."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 09:47 PM EST |
Of why there was a trial. ;)
If the judge was confused about how a phone straight out of
the box looked different than another of the same model and
concluded it was probably because of different versions and
models, then how could said phone model be in violation of a
static design / trade dress? How could one phone that looked
different than another within the model series contribute to
damages? How could a manufacturer be willful in its
infringement when arguments arise and that manufacturer
changes the model so that those arguments don't apply? How
could one trial assess infringement on 25 different models
times dozens of patches and versions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 17 2012 @ 11:52 PM EST |
"The brief generally rejects the idea that software per se represents
patentable subject matter but is favorable toward the patenting of computerized
applications that either improve computer performance, ..."
From Patently O. I have not yet had a chance to read the brief, so I do not know
what the brief's language is. If there is anything close to the quote though,
then aside from frivolous applications like games, "fart" programs,
screensavers most applications would qualify because they in some way or another
improve performance.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST |
The jury instructions should have said that none of the asserted claims in the
utility patents referred to the language used, the program structure, the
processor used, the operating system used nor the display management software
used.
For this reason, none of these aspects are relevant to proof of infringement. If
infringement of the asserted claims have not been proven without these aspects,
then infringement has not been proven. It is the patent which is being asserted
and not the technical details of products sold by the patent owner.
For the same reason, a design patent is for the patented design. Comparison of
accused products with products sold by the patent owner are irrelevant. It is
only trade dress issues that may be informed by such comparisons.
The utility patents issues, the design patents issues and the trade dress issues
are separate and each must be considered for each accused device in isolation to
the rest.
When it came to expert reports, no expert can hope to prove any infringement of
claims by reviewing the source code of such complex operating systems. Any
review of the software is limited to an interpretation of the comments text.
Since the comments text is insufficient for one skilled in the software arts to
write the operating system, neither is it sufficient to prove infringement of
the functions in the asserted claims because they are not software functions.
Further, since the asserted claims do not claim software functions, any request
for source code discovery is irrelevant to infringement and constitutes abuse of
the discovery process.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|