Slashdot Mirror
How Apple v. Samsung Was Explained To the Jury
jfruh writes "10 jurors have been sworn in for the Apple v. Samsung case, which is at the heart of the ongoing patent disputes over the companies' smartphones. While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law, the jury is at least in theory supposed to be something of a blank slate. Thus, it's interesting to see the detailed instructions Judge Lucy Koh gave to the jury, covering everything from the differences between utility and design patents to how to measure the credibility of witnesses."
Isn't Samsung from South Korea?
"Don't Panic!"
Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.
Think of it this way - instead of Umpire's at a baseball game calling balls/strikes/outs MLB
decides it would be better for unpartial outsiders to come in and call the game. When they arrive
they don't know the rules - so on coach argues safe and the other coach argues out but you
didn't know what safe or out even meant and what actions lead to them it would be hard for
you to make an informed decision - so before hearing the arguments from opposing coaches
who (since they are opposing) will be syaing the exact opposite of each other, the league has
an expert explain all the rules of the game to you and tells you what information to use when
making your decision (i.e. what you saw/heard, video replay, etc.) and what *not* to consider
(how loud a coach yells, how much spit is drooling don his chin, etc.)
A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design.
This is an erroneous claim. To see why, it is instructive to see what the US Patent Office has to say about design patents:
"A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.
The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:
35 USC 171: Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.
[...]
35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or (c) he has abandoned the invention, or (d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122 (b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 orsection 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
35 USC 103: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identic
The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric fucktonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.
Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)
Apple ain't making that mistake.
You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.
You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular.
Yet strangely enough no-one actually did all this totally-obvious stuff with a phone before the iPhone was released.
Ever looked at the nokia-line? 3310? 8850? And a zillion other phones just like that?
What, you mean phones that are NOT flat on the front, have LOTS of interface elements (shit, count the frickin' buttons), are NOT flat in the back, and are NOT rectangular - and in the case of the 8850, actually change shape and size depending on what you're doing at the time?