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."
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one first thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Samsung. Samsung is a electronics maker from the country Japan. But Samsung markets in the country America. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would Samsung, a Japanese electronics manufacturer, want to market to the United States, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall phones? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major computer company, and I'm talkin' about Samsung! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Samsung lives in Japan, you must convict!
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!"
Yup !! VH-1 started that damned ever-present logo at the bottom right of your screens !!
Isn't the judge, - Lucy Koh, - the same judge that grant an injunction for Apple, against Samsung ?
As illustrated in Slashdot's report on http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/07/02/0241212/samsung-appeals-apples-injunction-against-galaxy-nexus
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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)
You know, anybody can get the random +5 insightful every 20th post or so on the virtue of nothing more than random statistical chance. The problem is, these fucksticks get high enough karma after a while and end up with 15 mod points every 3 days and bring the rest of the site down. How about karma be awarded only if a percentage of your posts are above a certain moderated threshold? So if every other post hits +3 then you get a point of karma. If you have a long string of 1s then your karma starts to lower some etc. Mod me down if you agree!
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.
EFNet, and 4pply Join GNAA (GAY time wholesome and distributions about who can rant OF AMERICA) is the but it's no7 a Website Third, you argued by Eric
You don't know what you are talking about. Think about this for two seconds: there are plenty of phones and tablets that don't infringe on Apple's design patents, so there are no grounds for invalidating the patents. That's just a ridiculous wet dream you and a million other clueless nerds are having. Samsung was so lazy with their design they didn't even bother to try to come up with something new, and they were probably trying to capitalize on Apple's success by making similar looking devices. It's exactly the kind of thing patents are intended to prevent.
The subject title says it all. End Apple's patent trolling. Apple is the new Microsoft. Apple...No innovation, all litigation.
If you have any technical nous at all, read tech sites or news paper reports, you can't be a juror on a case that requires the jury to understand tech stuff, really for this sort of case the law needs changing as it does for fraud cases which last years and the jury really don't have a clue. These tech lawsuits are getting out of hand, I believe judges can declare platiffs to be in contempt of court and bar them from further prosections.
In this case:
Number of jurors who own both iPhone and Samsung phones = s
Number of jurors who own an iPhone = x
Number of jurors who own a Samsung = y
Number of jurors stuck in the precambrian period = z
Bias = (s|x|y|z/12) * 100
For an unbiased jury towards this (and potentially any x vs y) case, % of Bias is ideal for z = 100%
Any value for s will be deemed a slashdottian and immediately barred/ejected_into_space from the case.
* It may be worth noting the true figures of x and y if made available to the public versus the resulting final decision of the case when handed down. /cough
* A side experiment would be to, after the case is resolved and the court disbanded, track tweets of the jurors, the FB walls and other ramblings to get further insight into the justice system and how it 'fa... works'.
Isn't the judge, - Lucy Koh, - the same judge that grant an injunction for Apple, against Samsung ?
As illustrated in Slashdot's report on http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/07/02/0241212/samsung-appeals-apples-injunction-against-galaxy-nexus
The preliminary injunction in this same exact case?
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
Very fair. She's previously ruled against Apple on several matters.
But I have a more important question... You keep not capitalizing the word "judge" and keep emphasizing that her name is "Lucy"? Is this a subtle attempt to troll based on her gender? Is this a classic "she's a woman, what does she know about technology" bit of sexist FUD? Why exactly should we think you are being fair?
You asked if anyone thought the judge could be fair ...
Yes, I did ask that
Nope, that "implied" thing is a conjecture in your own mind. I never said "BIAS" and never meant it My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Holy shiat, dude. You're the most transparent concern troll in history. Do you think ANYONE will fall for this? And come on, with the way you keep emphasizing "judge LUCY," are we really supposed to take you seriously at all?
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Of course, Judge Koh is Korean-American. From his previous posts:
If you know Koreans, you would know that one special Korean characteristic is that they are one of the most stubborn race in this world
I came across the following article this morning that helped me identify some of the issues that Apple might have with Samsung:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/31/apples-opening-court-statement-focuses-on-samsungs-radical-shift-in-phone-design/
In the "top rated comments" section after the article (specifically the comment by user "troop231"), you will see a handful of pictures of Apple and Samsung creations side-by-side.
I'm not an expert in the legal aspects of the case at hand, but I found the comparisons presented to be illuminating.
It does not make sense!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Does this mean that:
a) Parts of the design that have function cannot be legitimately included in a design patent (perhaps arguably everything on an iPhone!)?
b) Parts of the design may have both functional and non-functional aspects but only the non-functional aspect is protected (for example if you had a round purple button in a certain place, other people couldn't put something round and purple in the same place regardless of whether it functioned as a button).
c) Something else?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Company A is going to point to it and tell you where Company B touched them.
I hope the jury finds that all of the patents in question are invalid for one reason or another.
The design is for the form of the product, not its mechanisation. That mechanisation would have to be a standard patent on the mechanism employed.
If you make a black plastic copy from resin of the iPad it has EXACTLY the same design. But it isn't electronic. However, the form isn't "electronic" for the ipad either, unless it requires coronal discharge as part of the design feature.
If the jury has to decide who is right and one relies on evidence that pi = 3 and the other relies on evidence that pi = 4, if I know pi = 3.142.... then NEITHER IS RIGHT. But if I don't know that Pi is an irrational number, I will be deciding one or the other is right. Whichever one chosen is wrong.
Similarly for the judge.
http://www.osnews.com/img/26230/s-comp.PNG
i thought jury trial in U.S. had 12, not 10 jurors? is the number 10 a misprint? or i'm confused? lol and how come the the green text says "Apple v. Samsung", not Apple vs. Samsung like in the video games? i guess americans write stuff differently.
From the summary
"While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law..."
Don't make me laugh so fucking hard, I'm pretending to work here!
The legal principal you are describing is called "Sweat of the Brow". The supreme court rejected that doctrine in "Feist v. Rural". (Though that was a copyright case not a patent case, the same reasoning applies.)
The answer to your question is that design patents cover articles that are "primarily ornamental", which I elaborate upon below. (Your item (b) is the closest to this. However, it is important to point out that, unless specifically stated, design patents cover all potential colorations of an article.)
An ornamental feature or design has been defined as one which was “created for the purpose of ornamenting” and cannot be the result or “merely a by-product” of functional or mechanical considerations. (In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 1020, 140 USPQ 653, 654 (CCPA 1964); Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastic Co., 189 F. Supp. 333, 337, 127 USPQ 452, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), aff’d, 294 F.2d 694, 131 USPQ 55 (2d Cir. 1961)) It is clear that the ornamentality of the article must be the result of a conscious act by the inventor, as 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a patent for a design be given only to “whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” Therefore, for a design to be ornamental within the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171, it must be “created for the purpose of ornamenting.” (In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 1020, 1022, 140 USPQ 653, 654 (CCPA 1964))
To be patentable, a design must be “primarily ornamental.” “In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall appearance of the article, in determining whether the claimed design is dictated by the utilitarian purpose of the article.” (L. A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123, 25 USPQ2d 1913, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) The court in Norco Products, Inc. v. Mecca Development, Inc., 617 F.Supp. 1079, 1080, 227 USPQ 724, 725 (D. Conn. 1985), held that a “primarily functional invention is not patentable” as a design.
A determination of ornamentality is not a quantitative analysis based on the size of the ornamental feature or features but rather a determination based on their ornamental contribution to the design as a whole.
While ornamentality must be based on the entire design, “[i]n determining whether a design is primarily functional, the purposes of the particular elements of the design necessarily must be considered.” (Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.2d 234, 240, 231 USPQ 774, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) The court in Smith v. M & B Sales & Manufacturing, 13 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (N. D. Cal. 1990), states that if “significant decisions about how to put it [the item] together and present it in the marketplace were informed by primarily ornamental considerations”, this information may establish the ornamentality of a design.
“However, a distinction exists between the functionality of an article or features thereof and the functionality of the particular design of such article or features thereof that perform a function.” (Avia Group International Inc. v. L. A. Gear California Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1563, 7 USPQ2d 1548, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) The distinction must be maintained between the ornamental design and the article in which the design is embodied. The design for the article cannot be assumed to lack ornamentality merely because the article of manufacture would seem to be primarily functional.
Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly, it is much appreciated and much clearer to me now.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park