|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:50 AM EST |
"A billion dollars for infringement that was officially not willful. Your
US patent law at work."
Using (at least some) patents found to be invalid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Judge Koh Rules in Apple v. Samsung - No Willfulness, No Enhanced Damages for Apple but No New Trial Either ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:07 AM EST
- Judge Koh Rules in Apple v. Samsung - No Willfulness, No Enhanced Damages for Apple but No New Trial Either ~pj - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:08 AM EST
- dunno - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:11 AM EST
- Enlighten me, please - Authored by: albert on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM EST
- Enlighten me, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 07:57 PM EST
- True, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:14 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:58 AM EST |
Please post Title as error->correction
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:01 AM EST |
Please do not stray on topic
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google purchases 15,000 Raspberry Pis for UK - BBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:54 AM EST
- Apple trademarks its retail store design - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:03 AM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: scav on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:00 AM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:24 AM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:53 AM EST
- of all the languages in the world... - Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Depends - Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:37 PM EST
- starBASIC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:00 PM EST
- starBASIC - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:35 PM EST
- I also suggest python - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM EST
- Wayne, check this link - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Wayne, try Appcelerator.com - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:55 PM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:56 PM EST
- Nobody pointed Gambas yet - Authored by: marcosdumay on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 04:20 PM EST
- ScriptBasic - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 04:31 PM EST
- Programming Question - Authored by: caecer on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:17 PM EST
- The brave folks on the front line of software development - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:17 AM EST
- New Help Desk - Nifty Doorways Uptight Infinity Edition on a 21" Monitor - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:05 AM EST
- New XKCD - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:20 AM EST
- UPnP flaws expose tens of millions of networked devices to remote attacks, researchers say - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:58 AM EST
- Is Elop Really This Delusional? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:34 AM EST
- Three Strikes = $600. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:32 PM EST
- China, GitHub and the man-in-the-middle - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:48 PM EST
- WTO Allows Antigua to Open Piracy Site - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 06:02 PM EST
- Facebook's Graph Search: Clear Your Search History - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:01 PM EST
- Why secretary is still the top job for women - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 02:34 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:03 AM EST |
Please include a link to the Newspick you're commenting on
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft's Surface Pro has far less open storage than advertised - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:27 AM EST
- "Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense" (PJ: Puh lease) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:14 AM EST
- Computers can model judge's decision - Authored by: davenewman on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:25 AM EST
- For Rent: The New Microsoft Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:01 PM EST
- web inventor warns about dangers of government snooping - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:19 PM EST
- Apple trademarks its Stores to deter copycats - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:28 PM EST
- Micron Slide to Unlock Patent - Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 05:05 PM EST
- NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 05:54 PM EST
- Ballmer doesn't fear dropbox - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:03 PM EST
- Firefox to block content based on Java, Reader, and Silverlight - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 04:15 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:07 AM EST |
See 'Comes v. MS' in the TOC sidebar
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 01:30 AM EST |
This whole steaming pile is going to be appealed anyway; why should I shovel any
part of it now. I'll deal with it when it gets remanded.
Maybe smart phones will be obsolete by then and everyone will just move on.
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:06 AM EST |
They are bound to come after this news.
Let's try to roast 'em good. And then ignore them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 02:16 AM EST |
The amazing bit in my opinion is how Judge Koh tries guessing what the figures
set by the jury are supposed to mean, what she thinks they must have been for,
and how to best interpret meaning into them.
If she needs to
second-guess the jury on almost the whole award stuff (and that after
the jury had to be told where they awarded money for non-infringement), the
probability that the jury even thought about those issues is minuscule. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 04:22 AM EST |
:-|[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 05:18 AM EST |
First, my general comment: what PJ said about the jury and prior
art.
About patent validity:one or more programs, wherein
the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed
by the one or more processors, the one or more programs
including:
instructions for displaying at least a portion of a
structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the
structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of
content;
instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the
displayed portion of the structured electronic document;
instructions
for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the
first gesture;
instructions for enlarging and translating the structured
electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch
screen display;
instruction for, while the first box is enlarged, a
second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box;
and
instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the
structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is
substantially centered on the touch screen display.
Request:
Claims construction, please, on 'a structured electronic document', 'box',
'first and second box', 'enlarging and translating the structured electronic
document', 'instructions for'.
Comment: What I always say about
'documents' 'displayed' on a computer and the claiming of abstract ideas based
on a visual illusion associated with abstract hand-waving motions. What the blue
blazes is 'gesture detection'? Any, old abstract gesture? Does it make any
difference to the novelty or usefulness, what the gesture is?
Oh, and
while I'm at it, the USPTO guides, thusly:Does your Invention Fall
Within § 101 Judicial Exceptions – Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena and
Abstract Ideas?
Determining whether the claim falls within one of the
four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. §
101 (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter) does not end the
analysis because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as
mathematical algorithms), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible
and therefore are excluded from patent protection.
So, which is
this invention? Is it process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? If
it is a novel and useful machine, what does the machine do that makes it novel
and useful enough to be awarded a patent and how do I distinguish the novel and
additionally useful invention from an otherwise identical 'portable electronic
device, comprising:
a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory;
and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the
memory and configured to be executed by the one or more
processors'?
For instance, let's consider a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone
and a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone. Why is the former a new and useful machine
and the latter, not? What makes one a new and useful improvement on the other?.
Why is this invented, mobile machine novel and useful when a non-mobile, but
otherwise identical machine would not be novel or useful?
It occurs to
me that I am not skilled in the art of owning a mobile smart phone. Perhaps that
is why I cannot see the use of this new and useful machine. If someone shows me
a machine comprising a frame with an external handle and internal gearing
wherein a user waves flags of all nations on rotating the handle my question
would be 'what's so useful about that?'. If it squeezed excess water out of
clothing after the weekly wash, then I could see some utility in that. Why is
the flag-waving so useful that it is patent-worthy?
If the same person
tells me that they have not actually invented the machine, but just the
handle-winding, flag-waving function, I would tell them that the USPTO would
never award a patent on that function, because they only award patents on actual
machine inventions and not the abstract idea of a machine.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 07:48 AM EST |
This is all terribly unsurprising. The trial and eventually the truths that
came out after the trial shows the whole thing was pretty badly handled.
"What's the point of a trial?" was the line that showed what was going
to happen here. And a judge could not and should not issue after-trial rulings
based on any new information. The show is the show after all. Should a movie
reviwer change the review after finding out the lead actor is gay? No.
For this judge to fail to call for a new trial is to shamelessly refuse to admit
shame. For this judge to accept the existence of prior art as proof of
non-wilful infringement while at the same time allowing the jury's findings
which were based on incorrect law. Well, this fits though... the jury's
verdicts came before its admission of how it came to its verdict did it not?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST |
After the jury ruling, it seems that the orders/rulings are all
about NOT having to do another jury trial.
Apple wants triple damages due to will fullness, but that would
require another trial to separate the damages. Ahh, rule
Samsung wasn't willful.
Samsung wants patents tossed due to whatever, but that
would require another trial to separate damages. Ahhh, rule
those patents are not invalid even if the USPTO now finds them
invalid.
OK. So it seems that way, but it is not necessarily so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST |
"America always do the right thing after trying all other alternatives
first."
Do we have time to wait?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jim Olsen on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 09:47 AM EST |
An unsophisticated jury has disregarded a weighty, dense set of legal
instructions and a voluminous record of technical evidence to fulfill the
foreman's desire to punish a perceived patent violator. We now see that the
judge validates and cherishes the verdict almost as if it were handed down
from God on Mount Sinai,
graven on stone tablets.
Despite this and
other travesties of justice that make civil lawsuits into
roulette
games with
billion-dollar payouts, we know that defenders of the status quo
will
ensure
that the USA continues to stand alone in the world in preserving the
civil
jury system, even in impossibly complex lawsuits such as this one.
All
hail the USA legal system, finest in the world!
--- Jim ---
Success in crime always invites to worse deeds. - Lord Coke [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 10:45 AM EST |
I think the takeaway from her rulings here is that she is
just trying to be done so this thing can make its way up to
the Circuit. She definitely contorted some things in
justifying the jury's findings, but it seems clear that she
started from a mental jumping off point of: "What do I have
to do to not change any results or incur any more
briefing/motions," so she eliminated willfulness so the
actual damages wouldn't increase, and upheld anything that
would have resulted in a lowering of the damages too.
The judge just wants to be done.
That's my unprofessional guess anyway. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Briefly put, this is unsurprising. Judges do not like to
overrule jury verdicts. Here's a brief overview.
In Federal Court, parties routinely file 50(b)/59 motions
after a jury trial. Why? To preserve appellate rights. These
are almost *never* granted. Why? Because unless you can
argue that you're going to win as a matter of law, you're
going to lose. Here's the problem- the judge has most likely
already seen these arguments before, in your summary
judgement and in your 50(a) motions (and maybe a prior
motion to dismiss). *And the law hasn't changed*.
Does this mean you'll always lose? No. Sometimes you can
point to something specific- say, a particular piece of
evidence that was necessary to support a verdict was never
introduced to the jury. Maybe the judge will suddenly decide
that, hey, I feel differently about the law. Maybe you can
point to something specific (a problem with jury
instructions) But it's rare. And a remittitur (reduction in
damages) is also extremely rare. The law is about rules and
presumptions, and these work against parties trying to
overturn jury verdicts at the D.C. level.
Juries can be a crapshoot in civil litigation (which is why
so many cases settle- risk/reward). There is an assumption
that if you lose the case, then the fault is on the party (I
am nutshelling here, but this is adequate for this); each
party is in control of the case (the evidence, the themes,
the "story") that they put in front of the jury and what
they chose to emphasize. It is not enough to say that a jury
was wrong- it must be shown that no reasonable jury could
have found the way they did, given the evidence adduced at
the trial.
I think the appellate case (assuming no settlement) will be
fascinating, but I don't think jury issues will figure
prominently in it. But hey- I could be wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM EST |
Judge Koh realizes that the jury went wrong but spends an large portion of her
rulings trying to defend their verdict.
I think she decided that since whatever she ruled both parties were likely to
appeal, she simply kicked the decision upstairs. If the Appeals court rules that
a new trial is in order they will also at least narrow the issues and give her
(or whoever the trial judge is) some direction.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:17 PM EST |
Well, more actually. But the other mistakes are her not admitting the trial was
unfair, because she's passing the football to the Appeals court, so she can
recuse herself when it comes back. She wants nothing more to do with it.
So I'm going to focus on two things are actual mistakes, and things she's
glossing over to get rid of it.
Thing 1) The '163 indefiniteness. If and only if, you support the ridiculous
notion that software is patentable, then her ruling here is perplexing as to how
wrong it is. Let me explain.
In software there is no room for "substantially centered". You can't
begin to center an object on a screen without knowing the approximate dimensions
of the screen. But there is no way to grab and "approximate"
screensize. You can programmatically request the "actual" screensize,
and using those set the exact coordinates to center an object on the screen.
This is a pure math thing. Yes one could write an algorithm to fuzzify the
coordinates so that the object varies on how precisely centered it is.
In fact, based on what I've read the only reasonable interpretation by one
skilled in the art is that the patent intentionally fuzzifies the centering
logic and thus only approximately centers objects inside the screen. So you'd
not necessarily ever see a box drawn exactly in the same spot twice.
But, I've only ever seen this kind of logic in practical joke programs,
installed on unsuspecting coworkers machines so they can't click a window that
pops up, because everytime they move the mouse towards it, it moves to another
random location.
So the judge was wrong here. Software is math, but drawing boxes on a screen is
pure Algebra and is exact by nature and definition. This is not Shrodinger's Cat
we are talking about. A screen has consistent, unchanging, and exact dimensions,
and an exact center point*, for any given object and screen resolution.
*Which may take at most one of two possible positions, if the true center lies
half way between two pixels. But you can't called that "substantially
centered", as either point could rightly be called the precise center. It
would be a matter of personal preference, as the position on either side could
equally claim the center point.
and Thing 2) I can't be certain, because I haven't read the patent but there was
talk of a "one-bit" field. In Samsung's patent (0/1), and in a
"prior art" patent a "v bit field" with the value
"V". Well, "V", can't be represented as one bit in a binary
computer that uses 0 and 1 as the two values. A "V" can be represented
in a "one byte" field. Now maybe someone made a mistake, or maybe it
really describes it as a bit field. But one thing is certain it can't be a value
of "v" or "V" in any standard commercially available binary
logic computer.
Now there are certainly other issues I see in her ruling, but these are ones she
is being "willfully blind" of, to put it in legal jargon.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:58 PM EST |
How soon can we expect to be hearing about the appeals in this case? There are
a lot of eyes watching this one. I suspect they will not wish to delay it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:11 AM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
20
13/02/01/apple_loses_bid_to_ban_s
masung_galaxy_nexus
"A US appeals court has denied Apple's request
for a
rehearing
of an injunction, instituted last June but reversed last
October, that would have stopped Samsung from selling its
year-old Galaxy
Nexus smartphone in the US."
No reason given. If I was Apple, and the
appeals court just
cut me dead like that I'd be a little concerned about what
they are thinking.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|