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."

5 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 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
  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)