Slashdot Mirror

He was asked if he had *ever* been involved in a lawsuit, and if so to expand on that. He is making erroneous claims that the question only pertained to the preceding 10 years now that he has been called out on that, despite all court transcripts never mentioning a 10 year limit.

Google and Groklaw are your friends.

Not in this case. See this transcript from groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

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.

I'm pretty sure "THE COURT" means the Judge. And I left the "Mr. Hogan" in there too, so there was no doubt.

You do realise that in the page you link to in the second highlighted panel, there is this line

Apple responds that it is willing to provide the settlement agreement but notes that HTC objects to the production of the agreement’s financial terms because of their competitive value. 8

So it looks like HTC did ask for the redactions, then you go to foot note 8 that leads to

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2151.pdf

which states

HTC has since advised the parties that it is willing to acquiesce to Apple’s production of the agreement on two conditions: (1) the Agreement must be marked Highly Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the protective order; and (2) the consideration amount must be redacted. (Decl. of Richard S.J. Hung in Supp. of Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung’s Mot. to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC (“Hung Decl.”) Ex. 1.) Samsung has agreed to both conditions. Despite this, and Apple's acknowledgement that Samsung is preserving its rights to request the unredacted version later, Samsung is unwilling to agree that its motion is moot and should be withdrawn.

Sources seem pretty good to me

And you sir should read the related documents

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2151.pdf

page 2 line 12 - 14. "Samsung has agreed to both conditions. Despite this, and Apple's acknowledgement that Samsung is preserving its rights to request the unredacted version later, Samsung is unwilling agree that its motion is moot and should be withdrawn.

Samsung agreed to the redacted version and then requested an unredacted version. If you'r going to quote something, check the foot notes as well.

May want to look at a more reliable source when it comes to litigation. If Samsung was happy with the redacted version it would not have went to oral arguments: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884

See:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884 .

For those too lazy to follow a link, here is the gist:

"Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted that requested. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the $1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return â" and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified."

In plain text: Apple: no injunctions for you and drop the damages you ask to what you can actually negotiate in the marketplace.

Want to bet that Apple isn't at all happy about this?

As Samsung explained:

[...] a juror is presumptively biased where "she told the part truth that was useless, and held back the other part that had significance and value." Clark, 289 U.S. at 10-11 (juror "counted off a few [past jobs] and checked herself at the very point where the count, if completed, would be likely to bar her from the box"); see Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.

IOW, stupidity or not, malice or not, the actions of the foreman, by talking about an inconsequential lawsuit and omitting the consequential one, demonstrate presumptive bias which is what Samsung's motion is about.

You are just making things up.

No, this stuff is widely available and I actually do know it. You could too if you actually put a little effort in.

Firstly, many patents are not essential in the sense that it couldn't be done without them.

That's not a correct understanding of essential. Essential means "you cannot implement the standard as it is now without this patent". It is not directly related to whether there was another way of doing the standard.

Wifi could have been done without Motorola's patent. Motorola just happened to have patented a method that works, and this was included in the standard.

That's also very unclear. Where there are several acceptable methods, one of which is not patented, the standards bodies normally have the obligation to take the one which is not patented. If they do take one which is patented that means either that patent was the only way they knew of to do something or that that patent was the best value for doing that thing. In either case, the patent must be valuable to the standard to be included in the standard.

I (sort of) agree that reasonable is difficult to clearly define. But I think everyone can agree that asking for 2.25% is not reasonable because if other patent holders ask for the same, then more than 100% of the price of the product would go to the wifi patent holders.

This argument has been clearly refuted in the related case law and discussions. Different patents have different levels of value depending on how important the problem they solve is. Look at Microsoft's FAT patent; the principle is completely obvious and almost directly equivalent to the UNIX directory (store file data a file); it just becomes, arguably, special enough to patent because of a particular choice of structure. There could be hundreds of trivial patents like Microsoft's FAT patent or Apple's touch gesture patents but any of those could be worked around by just making a different set of choices. Consider a patent like the invention of CDMA, on the other hand. This solves a whole bunch of problems (how to share a radio channel without device to device coordiation; data protection and tracking difficulty; multipath propagation etc.). Qualcomm survived for years more or less on that single patent alone.

Motorola's case is very clear.

That's before we start thinking of other patents. And it is also unreasonable because the more patented technology you add to the product, the less realistic it becomes. So if Microsoft had to pay for the wifi patents, in addition to 3G and 4G patents, touch screen patents, USB patents, compression patents and so on, it would make any product impossible.

Unfortunately, you may be right. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Patents exist specifically to stop other people from making products which compete with your products. For example, Microsoft tried to make it practically impossible to deliver Linux based navigation devices with access to FAT based storage. Tom Tom had to stop that. You are allowed to use patents because the patent holder is happy to let you. Look at the fact that Microsoft wants $20 per Android device for six "trivial" and "invalid" patents.

Normally, the fact that a patent is "essential" to a standard would make it more valuable, not less valuable. You, together with the other essential patent holders would have the right to block all others from entering a market and legally create what would effectively be a cartel. RAND terms are not designed to reduce that price; instead they are designed to keep the price more or less stable.

Secondly, non-discriminatory means no discrimination. Everyone pays the same amount. Anything other than offering the same license terms to everyone is discriminatory

Most of the companies that hold FRAND patents publicly disclose their rates. Samsung's for example is 2.4% of the retail cost of a device. Most FRAND holders will accept a cross license as part or all of the payment depending on what is on offer. As Microsoft really doesn't have any really essential patents in that space they get to pay in cash. Welcome to the world of FRAND patents on communications related things.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954 for the discussion about Samsung being investigated.

It's not a patent war, and Microsoft already knew what it was getting into. The Motorola patent was disclosed as part of proposing some open standards. When Motorola created those standards they promised to license them on a "fair and reasonable" basis. Everyone else who implemented the standard negotiated an agreement with Motorola.

Until Microsoft came along. Rather than negotiate a reasonable fee, Microsoft found a friendly judge in their home state of Washington and asked him to set a rate. Microsoft hasn't been contributing to the open standards, so they're trying to get the open standards devalued to increase the value of their own patents. There's a good piece on the subject that Groklaw posted back in September after a German judge told Microsoft to play nice and Microsoft responded by taking their marbles and running back to Seattle to find a friendlier judge.

NDAs in this case are an industry standard.

There were no such court instructions. The 10 years claim has been thoroughly debunked. Three cheers for transcripts!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725

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?

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120930131752509

Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused. Sure Moto would have to put up bond to damage MS may suffer if they win.

In a nutshell, Apple lied.

But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines?
Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109130213229

The question in the selection transcript was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught

How about Samsung being sanctioned over email retention, despite retaining emails earlier than Apple, even though Apple knew early that legal action would ensue.

You want a link? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120729091631834

Now, fuck off.

The question in the selection transcript was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

The question in the selection transcript was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165

The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:

During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation. Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.

Emphasis mine.

I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert)

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?

Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.

Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.

Don't let facts get in the way..

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360

And if Apple doesn't want to enter into negitiations with Motorola over the rate of the license then it is not operating in good faith. Other handset manufacturers have licensed Mototola's standards esdsential patents, probably by being reasonable and negotiating like normal people. Apple have played hardball here by refusing to negotiate up front and going straight to court instead. Groklaw, as usual, have a good summary here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121105153442192

2.5% is $10 to $13 per device. Apple asked Samsung for $30-$40 per Android device to cover use of its screen-shape/button design patents and minor UI features. Here's the presentation from Apple's lawyers:
    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2063Ex14.pdf

Now, Apple's patents are not FRAND, but given the worth Apple places on its own IP, doesn't it seem odd that Motorola IP for actual phone technology is "unreasonable" at 1/3 the cost? Unfair, even as a starting point for negotiations? In particular I find it strange that after much delay, Apple states that these essential technologies are worth 1/30 or 1/40 of the value of their design and UI patents.

It seems to me that Apple's price should be lower or Motorola's should be higher. If Motorola's price is unreasonably high, what does that say of Apple's? In particular now that some of those patents haven't held up?

Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use

But not willing to pay what other companies are paying. 2.25% is standard, this is only reduced when that company has patents of equal value offered in a cross (reciprocal) licensing deal. Apple is not being singled out here, it's the same deal offered to Microsoft (who like Apple, have no patents of value to hardware manufacturers). Google informed regulators it intended to charge no more than 2.25% for access to FRAND patents when they bought Motorola Mobility. Regulators agreed but Apple wants to squirm out of it. As groklaw put it:

It's a legal strategy in other words. Samsung and Motorola built the world that Apple and Microsoft now want to enter, and the early creators each have foundational patents that neither of the newcomers can build smartphones without infringing, so they want to pay less and they want to be immune from the threat of injunction, while being free to seek them on their own, non-standards-essential patents. It's a game, and that is all it is, despite the rhetoric.

So Apple and Microsoft want to stand on the shoulders of giants (Samsung and Motorola), thats fine. But the giant is simply asking for fair payment for carrying them.

Just so that you know in future, Florian has been fully discredited and some time later it turned out that he was taking money for a long time from the people he seems to support. He's also known to (have?) consult(ed?) for Microsoft.

There is plenty more where that came from.

Just so that you know in future, Florian has been fully discredited and some time later it turned out that he was taking money for a long time from the people he seems to support. He's also known to (have?) consult(ed?) for Microsoft.

There is plenty more where that came from.

Look FOSS patents is wrong at the best of times ("SCO is da WINNA!!" ; Oracle will defeat Google ; Apple will win it's trade dress suits etc. etc.) but in this case he really really doesn't have a clue. You would be much better linking to one of the appropriate articles on Groklaw where there is much better analysis.

You have a current preliminary analysis that this is a matter that needs to be looked into by a judge who has clearly already overreached his powers (and has already pretty much admitted that himself). He probably will end up ruling against Motorola since he's a political appointee in Microsoft's home town. He will be slapped down so hard on appeal that he won't remember his own name. His legal theory would undermine the entire patent system by allowing enforced licensing through implied contracts. The appeals court judges are a bunch of patent lovers and will never let that happen.

Look FOSS patents is wrong at the best of times ("SCO is da WINNA!!" ; Oracle will defeat Google ; Apple will win it's trade dress suits etc. etc.) but in this case he really really doesn't have a clue. You would be much better linking to one of the appropriate articles on Groklaw where there is much better analysis.

You have a current preliminary analysis that this is a matter that needs to be looked into by a judge who has clearly already overreached his powers (and has already pretty much admitted that himself). He probably will end up ruling against Motorola since he's a political appointee in Microsoft's home town. He will be slapped down so hard on appeal that he won't remember his own name. His legal theory would undermine the entire patent system by allowing enforced licensing through implied contracts. The appeals court judges are a bunch of patent lovers and will never let that happen.

87. Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

If Apple wanted to put out a different text then they were to first clear it with the court. This becomes even more clear if you read the justification for the judgement in which they say:

51. In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

By repeating texts about copying Apple is clearly and directly repeating the exact wrong deed for which they are being punished.

"why post a comment when you can't even be bothered to read the summary?"

Those are Motorola's demands. The parent was asking what are Apple's demands, which is clear if you read the GP. Apple is also demanding license fees for patents it claims Android is infringing. Those fees are not mentioned in the article, yet alone the summary. But they can be found here.

To answer the question, Apple thinks $30 per unit is reasonable to cover some questionable, non-essential, utility patents.

Why post a snarky answer to a question when you can't even bother to understand the question?

The judge has made it pretty clear that the text that's wanted is exactly the text that was agreed in court. Nothing more. There really isn't much to discuss in this case. Remember this is already a compromise text and method of presentation which was changed according to Apple's request from the original proposal. See Groklaw for details.

No, the judge was explicitly clear about what he wanted. He wanted an honest answer.

He didn't say "please mislead with the statement and violate the spirit of the law."

see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360

Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page .He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.

He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".

you should learn little more about the law before making half ass'ed comments. As other guy said, Samsung made an offer, apple refused it and didn't even try to negotiate. So its Apple that failed in the matter. Samsung has every right to defend its patents and if you say its unfair what they did then everything apple has done is unfair as well. Groklaw article explains it all, http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121007194355579 you should really read it.

You might want to read the current ITC ruling (you might want to skip opinion parts though, too nutty even for Apple-hating me) - information in summary is outdated/incorrect.

Part VII talks about patent exhaustion issues at length, in short - Apple failed to show the evidence for patent exhaustion defense both for Intel and Qualcomm chips, Samsung seems to argue that the license transfer was revoked due to ongoing lawsuits brought by Apple, or that's as far as I can deduce from that {[redacted]} ruling, {[redacted]} {[redacted]} {[redacted]} fuckers {[redacted]}: "Samsung says that the {[redacted])" (Id. at 252 (citing RX-0175C at 5.6).) Here, argues Samsung, Apple brought infringement claims against Samsung and, { [redacted]}. (Id. (citing CX-1587C).) Samsung says that Apple failed to identify any case or authority that would permit the Commission from preventing Samsung from exercising its express contractual rights under the Qualcomm agreement."

So what does that mean that ITC just told Apple to go fish?

Investigations means there were complaints from Apple in both jurisdictions and they were deemed reasonable to investigate. That's all.

According to the ITC judge reviewing Apple's complaints about Samsung's standards essential patents, Apple didn't avail themselves to any of the existing remedies when they felt Samsung wasn't offering them a fair licensing deal. They essentially said "You're asking for too much, so we're not paying anything."
If Apple really felt the prices were too high, there are processes in place to force Samsung to the negotiating table. They didn't use any of them. There's no evidence they even made a counter-offer.
Seems more like Apple just doesn't care about other people's patents than Samsung is offering an unfair deal.

This is almost comedy - apple is going to try to claim what samsung proved *apple* did in the lawsuit against samsung which it has now basically lost? Talk about trying for a third attempt to stop your competition through abusing the legal system. Outlined here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954

summary is that Apple:
sued samsung, claiming samsung abused patents ("charging too much!") while simultaneously abusing patents and encouraging people to use windows phones (hello antitrust!) and anyone other than google. This should set the DOJ off onto investigating *apple/ms/oracle*.

Not only is that hilariously pot -> kettle, but also it doesn't mean the DOJ is investigating anything.

Yes their patents may not be under FRAND but it looks like they *should* be.

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google

"Ex-Nokia exec Tommi Ahonen's new article has a few suggestions. Is the Nokia board either asleep at the wheel, or incompetent, or in collusion with the incompetent CEO?"

No, they are just another in the long line of suicide-by-Microsoft victims ..

And you think that the Linux Kernel people, standing up for their Legal RIGHTS ...

Except I'm not sure they have those rights. Copyright on the code, of course, but here we're talking about copyrighting the API. We've just seen a major case on the subject, and the preliminary results are that "This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted." Of course, that still needs to go through appeals, but it's about as solid a judgement as I've seen. It also matches the current state of the law in Europe.

And you think that the Linux Kernel people, standing up for their Legal RIGHTS ...

Except I'm not sure they have those rights. Copyright on the code, of course, but here we're talking about copyrighting the API. We've just seen a major case on the subject, and the preliminary results are that "This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted." Of course, that still needs to go through appeals, but it's about as solid a judgement as I've seen. It also matches the current state of the law in Europe.

"It is set to focus on how to ensure license rights to critical technologies are offered on "reasonable" terms".

US tech firms lean on UN to legalize stealing stuff from companies and then selling it back to them under RAND terms ..

What is Wrong with RAND?

Me Inc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2010090209355689

The jury foreman said the judge only asked for ten years, but the transcripts (reproduced on Groklaw) clearly show that he was asked if he was ever involved in a lawsuit. The original poster wasn't trolling, but he wasn't careful reading the article either.

First, it's called a lie of omission.

Second, the judge did the questioning, not the lawyers. They get to agree to jury questions, but the judge actually asks them, as you can see from the transcript.

Third, he never answered "yes", rather he gave one example and failed to give the others. Again, please examine the transcript and note that, when he was also asked, "Anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?" to which he answered "I don't believe so." This, in spite of being involved in a personal bankruptcy that cost him his house due to litigation by a company owned by Samsung.

Fourth, the failure to disclose it, no matter whose fault it may be, robbed Samsung of their legal rights. As such, they should be entitled to a new trial.

He answered yes, and gave AN example.

He gave AN example and was asked a lot of very specific questions about that example (check the relevant portion of the transcript here). While I don't claim to be a reasonable person, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any reasonable person would think something like "Geez, they're very interested in the details of the random example I gave. Maybe they'd be interested in the details of the other lawsuits I was involved in..."

Incorrect. Apple was guilty of the same behavior, and upon appeal, the judge issued instruction that either both parties receive Adverse Inference Instructions, or neither. Both parties opted for no instructions. Here's the source.

Better not to link to 'that site' (f.o.s.s.patents) as it is run by the notorious you_pay_for_what_I_say F.Mueller.

Here is the story on inverse inference on Groklaw. While some may claim that site is biased as well (against software patents in this case) there is no money involved, just personal and professional conviction - and common sense of course.

See it for yourself: court transcript from Jury Selection

Court: 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 vitness?

Prospective juror: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me ...

He goes on to give details of that case (which was settled out of court). He never disclosed the dispute with Seagate. But obviously, the court never said anything about not disclosing cases older than 10 years. So, he failed to disclose a very important case, probably because doing so would have meant that he couldn't have served in the jury, which he really much wanted (see TFA).

I think it's very possible he didn't intentionally lie. He did talk about a more-recent lawsuit he'd been involved in and the contract dispute was nearly 20 years ago(Samsung took a stake in Seagate in 2011).

Samsung is probably due a new trial for this though.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725