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.
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.
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 !
Bias towards what? Common sense?
-- no sig today