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!"
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)
Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?
BIAS!!!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I don't know what his bias is, but the facts are that she granted an injunction against the sale of Samsung phones on the basis of a few very weak patents. The strongest of which, apparently, was a search function that could search both the local phone and the internet at the same time.
I am not optimistic about this case.
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.
So what?
Did the facts support the ruling? Or are you just assuming BIAS!!
"All Things D got a copy of Koh's order, and we just gave it a quick read. Turns out that she granted the injunction due to the strength of the merits of Apple's case and the unlikelihood that Samsung would invalidate Apple's design patent -- the court already held that the 10.1 is "virtually indistinguishable" from the iPad's design and likely infringes Apple's IP. Furthermore, Judge Koh held that, because Apple and Samsung are direct competitors in the tablet space and "design mattered more to customers in making tablet purchases," Apple would be irreparably harmed by further 10.1 sales. Those two factors outweighed any hardship suffered by Samsung, and thus, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was stricken from US shelves."
- http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/26/judge-koh-stops-us-sales-of-galaxy-tab-10-1-puts-a-smack-down-o/
Any legal arguments you have against that? Note legal, not made up shit.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
A time comes for every electronic device where the basic form factor becomes obvious. Let me tell you that I was using pure touchscreen devices with rounded corners long before Apple came out with the iPhone. Apple was the only company dickish enough to patent the designs the industry was already converging on. For that they should be sanctioned.
I mean, even in a world where corporations are generally assholes, Apple managed to outdo the other players in the industry in sheer assholery. That's the only thing they deserve a patent for.
I would argue that apple's design patent is invalid.
Here is why, and it has nothing to do with opinion of apple:
A design patent can only be legally issued for "unique, new, and novel" shapes and design motifs.
Apple's idevice designs are none of those. They basically looked at a cheap plastic picture frame, and copied it.
Many consumer products come in this form factor, and have for a very long time. Here are some examples:
Chinese dry erase board, tablet size
Wooden round cornered picture frames
aluminum picture frame, chinese
For reference, here is what the iPad looks like.
complimentary iPad image
The color of the inactive display (black) is not a design feature. It is a feature of how the technology works.
I have seen plastic picture frames that are flat out strikingly like the iPad in aesthetic design in art stores since the late 80s, when plastic really became popular as a choice. If you are showcasing an image, using a picture frame as an aesthetic inspiration is a no-brainer.
Apple should not have been granted this patent.
You didn't use the word bias, but you sure described it. "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" is about as clear as it gets.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It's amazing how deep you're encased in Apple's lies to the extent that you can't even believe that there were other similar phones before. Tut tut.
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.
Besides, Sammy is fucked. Their internal communications basically said, "copy the iPhone. Now. Before we become irrelevant.". That's fucking damning.
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
If you ever talk to any ship crew or flight crew that had Korean captains, you would understand why ship crews / flight crews all over the world are very scared of Korean captains - even when there is a huge storm brewing in front of the vessel/plane, the Korean captain would still give the "go straight ahead" order
Even after Google warned them of their products look too much like that from Apple, Samsung still went ahead and did what they did
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I meant "keyboardless" devices with a large screen taking up almost all real estate. My first one was a Palm, my second ran Windows CE and the third was an HTC OS. This lawsuit is about form factor not "finger touch" technology. And there were plenty of similar form factors before.Just because the iPhone was very popular doesn't mean they invented the form factor.
God damn man, I was having fun with the trolls!
Bias towards what? Common sense?
-- no sig today
I don't understand how google doesn't have prior art on this. Anybody remembers google personal search or whatever it was called ? An executable for Windows that sorted through all your files, with a web interface, and that displayed results both from your computer and from the web.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
FYI, judge Lucy Koh is not a Korean-American
She is a Chinese-American
Get your facts right, please
Obama picks Korean American for federal bench
President Obama has nominated Lucy Koh, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, to the federal bench in San Jose. If confirmed, she would be the nation's second Korean American federal judge.
She is the daughter of Korean immigrants. Her mother escaped North Korea after the 1945 division of Korea by walking south for two weeks while suffering from yellow fever, and her father fought against the Communists in the Korean War, then opposed a military dictatorship in South Korea and immigrated to the United States, according to the Asian American Justice Center, a civil rights group.
Keep in mind that the current lawsuit is about "form factor" and not touch based devices. So your point is moot. Start talking about rounded rectangles instead and we can go from there.
I have no hesitation in acknowledging that Apple popularized touch based devices. But that doesn't mean it invented them. Guess what you need to validly patent something? Yup.
The iMac was released in 1998, so a phone from 2004 isn't prior art.
What does the iMac, a Desktop Computer, released in 1998 (iMac in 1998) have to do with Pocket PC Phones released in 2004? IMHO you are wrong, it is prior art.
These type of devices never took off because they were hacked together and ran an OS that was designed for a mouse.
And who cares whether the devices never took off? The fact remains that they existed well BEFORE the iPhone.
And the design looks nothing like an iPhone.
These may not look completely like an iPhone, but they were rectangular, with some curved edges (especially if you consider the fact that antenna now usually lies within the phone, not outside as used to happen then because of technology limitations for smartphones), which Apple is claiming a design patent on.
I find it amusing that you would say that, given that established caselaw and precident for determining applicability for protection and the grounds for application rejection more closely parallel GP's view than yours, according to the cases cited by the USPTO concerning the applicability and enforcement of design patents.
For reference, what exactly *DO* you think design patents are for?
The intended enforcement class is for a completely novel physical shape or image feature, which is not manifest in *any* other product, and which is not considered to be a derivative of other existing forms by an "average observer", which has "little or no prior knowledge of the art."
At least according to the USPTO anyway.
___
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs w average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, th "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous a evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average o under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."
____
Ask and you shall receive.
-----
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997).
The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts whe evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."