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."

Comments

Here's how it was explained

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Here's how it was explained

[zaphod777]

Isn't Samsung from South Korea?

Re:Here's how it was explained

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not make sense!

Re:Here's how it was explained

[Grygus]

Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.

Oracle vs Google

[zaphod777]

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.

Re:Oracle vs Google

[bhagwad]

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.

Re:Oracle vs Google

[zaphod777]

http://phandroid.com/2012/07/31/pre-iphone-design-concepts-add-weight-to-samsungs-defense-in-patent-trial/

Re:Oracle vs Google

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Oracle vs Google

[Adrian Lopez]

"A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design."

I shudder to think what, say, the musical instrument market would look like today if the designs of cellos, violins, classical guitars, grand pianos, and countless other instruments with roughly equivalent shapes were similarly protected.

Re:Oracle vs Google

[Swampash]

The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric fucktonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.

Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)

Apple ain't making that mistake.

Re:Oracle vs Google

[rtb61]

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.

Hahaha!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

Hahaha!

Re:Judge Lucy Koh

[guises]

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.