Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Apple v. Samsung Was Explained To the Jury

Posted by Soulskill on from the please-don't-laugh-while-the-lawyers-are-speaking dept.

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."

10 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Oracle vs Google by zaphod777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am hopping that Apple gets smacked own as hard as Oracle did in the Oracle vs Google case. A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design. Plus Samsung had many similar prototypes in the works before the iPhone even debuted.

    --
    "Don't Panic!"
    1. Re:Oracle vs Google by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. To my mind, this trial should NOT be about whether Samsung "copied" Apple designs. It's about all of Apple's smartphone "design patents" being invalidated and them being sanctioned for misusing the judicial process by applying for frivolous patents. Then they should also pay Samsung's legal fees and a public apology for being dickheads.

    2. Re:Oracle vs Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the patent office needs to be smacked down a bit, too. This entire class of patents is ridiculous. You shouldn't able to patent a shape unless that shape advances science and the useful arts. Create a 4th dimensional Hypercube? Fine, that deserves a patent. Create a rectangle made of glass an, metal and plastic? Hell no!

    3. Re:Oracle vs Google by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see her doing that. She seems to be explaining the boundaries of the case that she and the lawyers have "agreed" to, and what the jury needs to decide on. I didn't notice her telling them how to think.

      The fact is the case is so broad and there are so many nits to pick, I'd be surprised if the jury could do anything rational with it.

    4. Re:Oracle vs Google by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Design patents serve a somewhat useful purpose, although I think things like trademark and trade dress serve the purpose better. Just like utility patents, the problem isn't necessarily that they exist, but that USPTO is handing them out like candy. A deliberately minimalistic design with no distinguishing features other than its minimalism shouldn't qualify for a design patent, just as an extremely obvious patent that is just performing an existing operation on a new class of device shouldn't qualify for a utility patent.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Oracle vs Google by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those appearance patents are only meant to prevent another companies product being sold in the same guise as the patent holder's product. The point of protection being if people were buying the Samsung product in the mistaken belief it was an iPhone. That should be the only thing viewed by the judge. If people are buying the Samsung product based upon preferring the software Android, then that should be the end of it, they are not confusing the offerings, this is clearly a gross abuse of the intent of design patents.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Oracle vs Google by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The clear issue that stands out there, is that apple's design is neither new, nor original, and therefor not applicable for patent protection.

      As others have pointed out, the combination of "rectangular, thin, with rounded corners and a small bezel border" is not new, and existed in aesthetic designs of personal devices prior to apple's adoption of the aesthetic feature set.

      Apple is more claiming that it has taken the old and made it its own, which is now an apple signature appearance-- sure, they can do that, but that falls under trade dress and trade mark, not patent. Similarly to marvel owning red and blue packaging with a spiderweb motif for spiderman products. Making a generic product called "arachnaboy" and packaging it in red and blue blister packs with spiderweb motifs is a trade dress violation. Not a patent violation.

      Apple should not have been granted this patent, due to prior art for other personal electronic devices. Claiming "but never a phone or tablet computer!" Does not magically make the aesthetic design novel, nor new.

      I hope apple gets their precious little patent used as toilet paper, because in its current form it is completely without value.

  2. Hahaha! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law...

    Hahaha!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  3. Function based design by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
    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. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.

  4. Re:Judge Lucy Koh by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It could very easily exist in the form of a digital picture frame, which would then look very much like an idevice, and be a digital device.

    Claiming "but not in a digital device!" Is like claiming "On the internet!" Or "On a computer!" In a patent for something done commonly for years, as if it were not obvious.

    While comonly granted, such protections should not have been enacted.