|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:11 PM EST |
which apparently did not include spending effort on whether or not
this was a valid patent
Uh, the jury consists of laymen. Just
because the USPTO has come to the conclusion to invalidate, this does not mean
that the jury would have had to come to the same conclusion.
I don't see that
the USPTO decision does in any way imply shoddy work by the jury: we really get
no new information about the jury work that we had not had before.
The real
importance is that the judge can't really ignore this. Not because of what it
tells him about the jury's work, but because it obviates the jury's work. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:24 PM EST |
So, as I understand it, patents for two key components of the Apple
"experience", bounce and pinch-to-zoom, have been invalidated through
this process that Apple started.
These two key components of the Apple "experience" are now free for
anyone, including Android, Microsoft, RIM, and others, to use.
Not a big success for Apple.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:30 PM EST |
"Eror" -> "Error" in Title block please
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:32 PM EST |
No pinching!
If you post On Topic, we will make you defend rounded corners
as a novel idea which is not obvious to a skilled
practitioner of the art.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:02 PM EST
- "As long as it also means the end of Apple and Microsoft, I’m fine with that." - Authored by: kg on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:59 PM EST
- Do No Evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 11:29 PM EST
- denouement - Montrealers: no danger of being snatched by a royal eagle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:24 AM EST
- Bankrupt Kodak sells off patents to investors for $525m - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 06:12 AM EST
- Developer preview of Java SE 8 for ARM now available - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 07:36 AM EST
- This one is a lot more fun! - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 07:43 AM EST
- Chumby developer building open source laptop - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 07:58 AM EST
- Syrup Rustlers Arrested - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:19 PM EST
- EU to charge Samsung - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST
- Your source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:00 PM EST
- Method and System for Exposing Multi-Billion Dollar Patent Racketeering Scheme - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:59 PM EST
- National Strategy For Information Sharing And Safeguarding - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM EST
- Android Phone as Toilet Remote - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 05:43 PM EST
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:34 PM EST |
URL please!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:35 PM EST |
And the beat goes on!
"Comes v. MS" link is above.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:51 PM EST |
Would the judge have to revise the jury decision now? New
trial? Are there any precedents for this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM EST |
Except that Velvin Klink err I mean Hogan, reported to the press that they
presummed that since the USPTO granted the patent, the patent was valid. Despite
jury instructions that they were to make no such inference.
Mouse The Lucky Dog
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:19 PM EST |
PJ asks, "Yes, this should affect damages. It should
affect whether Samsung
ultimately gets a new trial, in that
damages were decided only as a total,
product by product but
not broken down patent by patent. How do they decide how
to
reduce the damages now?"
No need for a new trial. The court needs to
assume
that the bulk of the jury award was for that patent, and
reduce the
total to one dollar for the remaining patents,
since there is no other fair way
to apportion it.
That would be just, since the jury obviously didn't do
their job. The whole Hogan affair aside, somebody had
calculated that in order
to reach a decision in the 3 days
the jury deliberated it would have had only 3
minutes to
read each page of the jury instructions in that time, with
no time
left over for discussion. (or something like that,
don't recall now.) Clearly
it was a jury that had no respect
for the Court and didn't take their role
seriously.
As well, Samsung because clearly has been put through so
much
expense and humiliation because of a vexatious litigant
- Apple, they merit
some respite.
The judge needs to send a message that in her courtroom,
Justice prevails. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM EST |
I can imagine him now, tossing and turning
at night, worrying about rounded corners.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST |
A Christmas present for reality, for sure. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:49 PM EST |
I thought a huge piece of the Oracle v. Google pre-trial
build up was a demand that the damages theories had to be
per-patent (at one point, per-claim, though ISTR that got
rescinded). My recollection was that was specifically to
have the jury (and not a judge after the fact, or a new
trial on damages) to answer specifically this sort of
question on the original verdict.
So, clearly it's possible for a judge to design a trial that
considers damages to be awarded on a per-patent basis.
Why didn't Judge Koh do something similar? Clearly the
court was on notice this patent was under review. Shouldn't
this exact situation (having to re-apportion damages post-
trial) been avoidable? Is there a "standard practice" for a
case like this where damage apportionment can be forseen as
a need?
Or is it Oracle v. Google that's the unusual case management
situation? I know there were a few things about that case
that were unusual...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 08:21 PM EST |
I mean, if *at the time of the trail and award of damages*,
patent '915 was valid, doesn't that mean that they have
to pay Apple for it? Not going forward as of the time
the USPO invalidates, but for up 'ti then?
Hypothetically, if I invent gadget Z, and sue or troll for
it, and get a bazillion bucks from some outfit ... and then
a few years later the USPTO invalidates my gadget Z patent,
do I have to give the money back?
What if I've spent it? Or gave it to Rutan for space
exploration?
What if at the last minute, before the award, I settle
out of court and license patent Z for a half bazillion,
what happens then? Do I get to keep the money?
This is sort like Alan Turing's wanting to get pardoned,
except that at the time he *did* it, it was a crime.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:19 PM EST |
My Galasy Ace does pinch to zoom but then I only recently aquired it and it has
a more recent version of Android. Is it true that the original model available
in the U.S. did not pinch to zoom or is this just more of the jury's funny
business?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:47 AM EST |
If Samsung had settled then they would still have to pay.
Since they did not settle, and the case is still on going, I
doubt they would have to pay.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 05:48 AM EST |
How do you get the USPTO to reexamine the patent and put enough effort into it
that they realize it is, indeed, invalid? How did Samsung do it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 07:22 AM EST |
An early Christmas present as far as I am concerned. This is great news for
both the open source community and for Android users everywhere. I get the
impression that both the US patent office and the US judiciary have started to
get wise to the patent bullying tactics employed by Apple (and to a certain
extent Microsoft) - that are nothing to do with other companies benefiting from
'their' technologies.
---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice
instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 10:34 AM EST |
Does Apple use more hyperbole than others in describing the
importance of
its patents or in castigating infringers. From what I've seen,
no. We had
Samsung a few days back saying in essence there's no
smartphone
industry,
except through licensing their patents. About juries in
general and this
jury in particular, we may all imagine ourselves fighting to
insist that we
deliberate on issues of prior art and obviousness. I point out
that besides
the foreman with a possible chip on his shoulder, you had eleven other
people
who, after giving up weeks of their lives, were quite willing to
endorse his
suggestion for a short cut. My conclusion is that the jury
independently and
unanimously decided that Samsung copied the iPhone
and wanted to punish Samsung
for doing so. Samsung's arguments were
considered loophole lawyering. Now,
again, we may imagine that we would
have been different in the deliberation
room, but here's the point,
somebody who takes a suit to jury trial is going to
be unhappy, and thus,
would love to have another shot with a different jury.
The Court has to be
circumspect, otherwise its time becomes consumed with
redos. Isn't it
always understood that the jury option is risky? The
above may be
the bleatings of an Apple fan. The following is offered with full
impartiality. It
is impolite to sarcastically attack a jury for not
anticipating a USPTO
preliminary assessment that its earlier assessment
was
completely wrong. Let's reserve our scorn for the USPTO who does
and
undoes
without a passing acknowledgment of shareholder and court
resources wasted with
their "Never mind." A jury sees the thicket of
legalese and technical terms of
art which are carefully chosen to maximize
the patent's range while obscuring
where the hard work of implementation
lies, the obviousness of the idea as
analogous to what came before, or the
idea as
manifest future step. The jury
is shown a patent, certified by the US
government. The presumption is that the
government, who is paid well for
the effort, vetted it carefully. It's a naive
assumption, but it's a tempting one
to make for twelve people, paid a few
dollars a day, who want their lives to
return to normality. Sarcasm for the
jury based on this after-trial event is
unwarranted. Now the USPTO? Fire away
at the folks who take money to
grant and then de-grant claims. That there seems
like good work, if you can
get it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rebentisch on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 01:34 PM EST |
I just don't get how you can litigate with an invalidated patent. Something must
be wrong in your legal system.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: knarf on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 02:36 PM EST |
For a judicial instrument as powerful as patents are it is confounding to see
the sloppy approach the USPTO takes in granting them. The amount of hysteresis
in the proof burden between granting a patent and declaring it invalid is so
large as to be nearly insurmountable by a jury - even if that jury takes its
task in deciding the validity of the patent serious (unlike Hogan's crew did).
Potential patentee: I claim all rights to the action of making the room light up
on the flick of a switch.
USPTO: Granted
Patentee -> World: pay up you copycats!
Jury: We think this has been done before
Court: prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt
Jury: ehhh...
Then again, after the trial the following might happen:
World's lawyer: We believe this patent to be invalid
USPTO: OK, patent declared preliminary invalid. Patentee, have anything to say
on this?
...
The rest of the process seems to be as muddled as that which came before. Not to
mention the fact that, if the patent is declared invalid after the trial, any
payments made to the patentee are not automatically reversed. All in all patent
law resembles a giant money sink for anyone involved in product design, and a
money magnet for all those involved in the judicial process around patents. That
surely was not the intended goal?
---
[ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What you miss - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 03:28 PM EST
- What you miss - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM EST
- What you miss - Authored by: knarf on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 04:45 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 03:44 PM EST |
Unfortunately, since the patent was invalidated by referring to another patent
which is still valid, doesn't this just open the door to another patent case,
namely TouchTable vs the world? Or, does this just mean that the long process of
invalidating the TouchTable patent starts? Or, do we hope that TouchTable sees
the wisdom of not suing anybody, and doesn't succumb to selling the rights to a
troll?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|