Slashdot Mirror
Why Juries Have No Place In the Patent System
New submitter Isara writes "GigaOm's Jeff John Roberts has a compelling writeup about patent trials and how juries are detrimental to justice in such cases. Roberts uses the recent Apple-Samsung trial as the backdrop for his article; although the trial lasted three weeks, during which hundreds of documents were presented and the finer points of U.S. patent law were discussed, the jury only took 2-3 days to deliberate. 'Patents are as complex as other industrial policies like subsidies or regulatory regimes. When disputes arise, they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard "copycat" narratives.'"
umm, is the entire article -1 flamebait? or -1 troll? I never can tell the difference
You want to upvote/downvote? Go back to Reddit! Here we mod up/mod down.
we could start debating the patent system instead of patents themselves. There is a lot of talk about the validity of these patent lawsuits and not enough about the validity of the system itself.
We should either
1) Gut the patent system, releasing all patents into the public space or
2) Move patents to a 5-10 year maximum life before they are turned over to the public
Innovation is key, but innovation doesn't necessarily mean figuring it out on your own. Too many companies have strangleholds on great technology and methods, and the not being able to access that information only hurts those trying to compete and become viable. The idea that you can patent things as silly as a lot of what comes through in the IT world (rounded corners, click to buy, slide to unlock, etc) is stifling not only competition, but entrepreneurs, students, and people who could take it and do something better.
If your company has to bank on a patent to remain profitable, then you probably don't deserve to continue to be a company - part of being the leader is being able to continue and innovate in a space without worrying that your competitor might know how you're doing X because you're already focusing your efforts and resources on developing Y instead.
I don't really like the idea of replacing trial-by-jury as the ultimate arbiter, and in any case it would be difficult to get such a thing passed. A more incremental reform, easily doable within current constitutional law, would be to give the USPTO approval process more teeth so fewer bad patents get issued in the first place, and therefore trial never becomes a possibility. It shouldn't approve any old stuff that comes its way, but should really take the non-obviousness and novelty tests seriously.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's supposed to be jury of your peers...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
- Amendment VII, The Constitution of the United States of America
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And according to Steve Jobs Apple 'unashamedly' copies others, but will get in a hissy fit if anyone else does it to them.
'cept the Constitution guarantees a JURY trial in all matters over $20 in federal court.
This was not incorporated against the states by the Civil War amendments, so a state court can do differently... but patent suits are exclusively heard in federal court.
"Allow any patent that is submitted into public domain, to be filed free of charge."
***
Let's be honest, most ideas are not conceived of in some big corporate lab. Most are conceived in the minds of individuals long before. Often the best ideas are conceived when an idea person is unemployed - a time when they're even harder pressed to find the $1K-$5K to file a patent.
Those individuals, usually do not have the resources to get their ideas off the ground very quickly. They might start, but then they find by the time they're working toward their goal. A big corp with lots of $$$ for lots of developers releases something similar. Worse, now they own the patent on it. The individual now can't even continue their own idea.
Happens all the time.
Courts in the Netherlands, the UK, and Korea found that Samsung devices were not in violation of Apple's designs. So, whether or not Samsung copied appears to depend on where you live.
do you not see what the premise of the story is does not have to do with this case but shown that it was deliberated inaccurate. And will the real slim shade please stand up. Moron
All the experts for a given technology already work for industry. Finding independent experts that are affordable and want to work on a tribunal would be a challenge.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
"Reason 1: Jurors can be influenced by brand loyalty."
Duh. But the more relevant issue is: would a "tribunal" not be swayed by brand loyalty? Is there any reason to believe that would be the case?
"Reason 2: Juries are too easily swayed by âoeheâ(TM)s a copycatâ"
Quote Posner: "patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats."
Posner may have reason to believe that, but it's still nothing more than his opinion about what someone else is thinking. It isn't actual evidence that this point is valid. Once again, I have no reason to believe a "tribunal" would be much different.
"Reason 3: Jury trials over patents are a waste of money"
Quote article: "While the companies would have blown a bundle no matter what, the jury presence added millions to the tab."
Huh? Um... excuse me, but the trial was a month long, and jurors don't get paid squat, nor are their accommodations expensive. A juror I know not long ago got locked into a 9-day trial, he got paid less than minimum wage for it, and the lunch he got EVERY DAY was a peanut butter sandwich and an apple.
Even if Posner's court is more generous than that, there is no way in hell the jury cost "millions".
In summary: While some juries might be more responsible than others, I don't have any reason to believe that "a tribunal" would be any better at judging patents than the patent office itself. After all, the patent office is full of professionals, too.
Nerd snobbery. Don't like a verdict/decision/legislation? Construct increasingly tortured arguments and bleet them to the choir that someone/some group/some organization was simply too simple/inexperienced/stupid to understand, and that the solution is to exclude the unwashed from having any say.
This is why I left tech 10+ years ago. It is the one segment of the economy (other than perhaps finance/investing) where arrogance and rudeness is often confused with intellectual prowess and celebrated openly.
Samsung copied Apple flagrantly, not *just* copied, but *flagrantly* copied. The jury saw that, and decided that that was wrong. The result was that Apple won its case.
We're supposed to reward effort, and not reward those who cheat. Despite the clamour from the android community, pretty much everyone I've spoken to who aren't emotionally invested in the result are "pro" the jury and think it was a fair result. Samsung- (and by extension Android-) fans, deal, and move on in life. Or hate. Your call.
Simon.
$12 billion in market capitalization loss says Samsung shareholders and the market agree with you and the jury.
While I know many on Slashdot are outraged by the outcome of the trial, if we're going to request certain trials no longer be tried by a jury, there are more important subjects before the courts than patent trials. I realize that's our passion and thus what we discuss and I realize many here would love to see Samsung victorious and Apple outcast in shame but, let's be real, it was a trial. It was tried the way it was supposed to be tried. One side one. One side lost. Sorry you don't like the results. Sorry you don't like the process. Sorry you don't like that certain things can be patented. Sorry. But if we're going to ask for juries to be done away with, let's do away with them in cases that really matter.
The problem is, that the jury admitted to skipping entire parts of the case and just awarding apple money. Not just that, but some features that apple has patented were not even apple innovations. So whether Samsung did copy or not, Apple was awarded money for things it copied. It isn't the fact that people are pro Samsung or pro Apple, it is that Apple was awarded a giant sum of money due to a broken system and an uneducated jury when it comes to patents.
but not a requirement. If you don't think a jury can handle it, don't use one.
Better still, the likes of Apple and Samsung could agree to arbitration. After all, if it's good enough to force upon consumers...
At least read the summary. The points raised in the article aren't so much concerned with the outcome, rather the means by which the outcome was arrived upon. At no point was there any debate on whether Samsung copied Apple, it was on whether Apple had any exclusive rights that were infringed by Samsung. The jury disregarded the documents that addressed that question. Blah blah blah, juries are inadequate for this type of thing.
Seems like they had it right back in 1830 when the patent office was planning on closing it's doors for good, claiming that there was nothing left to invent. Feels like this now. No one has invented anything, we are all just stealing other peoples patents, or at least according to Apple...
And my thesis was flagrantly built on top of existing algorithms to improve what was there. I didn't create a whole theory from scratch...
Samsung copied the same capabilities that Apple copied and put into their products.
There's a difference.
Apple copied the rectangle with rounded corners from 3000+ year old clay styluses.
Apple copied the finger swipe, pinch resize and other touch screen capabilities from other manufacturers.
Sure they put them together in a way many hadn't seen, but that doesn't make them original, that just makes them smart.
Problem is, there are a lot of smart people in the world that can put them together as well.
There's nothing original in any of Apple's products - just different packaging that can be lied about on patent applications using words like "on a tablet" or "on a phone" - these are shams, false patents - using others IP to try and bolster an otherwise failing company. (yes Apple is failing - it wouldn't be suing like it is if it wasn't).
I kind of agree, really. I think you can actually oppose software patents but still support the decision in this case.
A lot of the evidence was pretty damning and indicates that in this case, the systems happens to have achieved what it was actually supposed to achieve. That doesn't mean the damaging side-effects which are why lots of us believe the current patent system is problematic don't exist; it just means that *in this case* the system actually happens to have probably given the right result. It seems pretty clear from a lot of the evidence that was entered into the case that Samsung really did set about intentionally, directly copying a lot of Apple's design and function - not looking at it as a basis for possible improvements, but just going 'hey, let's do exactly what they did'. Samsung also conducted its case appallingly badly; I don't know where they got their lawyers, but they pulled some really ridiculous stunts which probably did more to harm Samsung's case than to help it.
If you just step back a bit and dispassionately look at a lot of the highlights of the case, Samsung comes off looking like crap, frankly.
Think about it. You are confronted with an important decision. Do you attempt to solve it by finding 12 random people, screening them to ensure they have no specific knowledge the question at hand, and then have two people who have no common ground argue in front of them? Would you go to a hospital that used 12 random people with no medical knowledge to determine your course of treatment? When your car is not working, do you take it to a garage where there is trained mechanic or ask 12 random people with no knowledge of cars to tell you how to fix it?
Then why does anyone pick 12 random people who are screened to ensure they have no legal knowledge and no knowledge of your specific issue as a means of resolving a legal question? And then people wonder why juries arrive at so many whacky conclusions...
Legal questions need to be answered by people with the proper training and experience. Juries should be comprised of professionals who have the training and experience to answer the sorts of questions that come up in legal trials, otherwise your answers are little better than flipping a coin.
As a court room is a poor place to learn about deep issues covering tech cases.
If the parts were switched in this trial, Apple would leave not paying a dime, it is an American court defending an American company with American juries versus an Asian company !
Why is it that every other country where this case was brought to court denied apple's claims?
Whether they copied (i.e. if there was a causal link between Apple's and Samsung's products) is irrelevant from the point of view of patent law. Patent law does not provide the defense of "independent discovery". No matter how much evidence of Samsung's knowing about the features of iphone/ipad was provided, the patent law provides no reason to consider it in the trial.
Your reaction is yet another demonstration how patent law is misunderstood.
$12 billion in market capitalization loss says Samsung shareholders and the market agree with you and the jury.
Is that how you think the market works?
That's just not true. I've heard from many neutral parties and even Apple fans who believe that Apple went too far with these lawsuits and patents. Apple is a great company with great products that should be able to compete in the marketplace without resorting to legal trickery. No one should be able to own the idea of a rectangle with rounded corners or a touch screen with rows of icons. Was Samsung inspired by Apple? Sure. Was Apple inspired by others that came before it? Of course. That's how technology progress (at least how it used to before this ruling).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I would respectfully disagree and say that no, the jury didn't "see it." They blindly rubber-stamped the samsung line in efforts to expedite the amount of time they'd have to dedicate to the trial.
Have you seen a Samsung Epic 4g? Look at it..the only thing that you might be able to say is similar is the grid of icons, and there is significant amount of prior art of a grid of icons, to start with, palm. There is no way anyone could truthfully claim that phone flagrantly copies the iphone, even some 90 year old grandma.
http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-epic-4g-review/
After the verdict, I think everyone was thinking "wow..what did the jury see that I don't?" But after the jurors and foreman started talking, its apparent they did not do their duty. I'm not talking about the final verdict. I'm talking about how they decided they could just rubber-stamp every device.
It's like a student blindly answering multiple choice questions..it's apparent they weren't even reading the question when the same question is answered differently on separate occasions. In this case, they award damages for a device that they previously answer "does not infringe", and find some obviously non-infringing device to be infringing.
Samsung *had* nothing like an iPhone.
They copied, knowing a fine would come later.
Now they *have* market share and phones more original than their first rush to market.
It worked. They remain a player.
by patent-troll-industry-friendly political appointees, a la the SEC, FCC, etc. Although the current system of relying on lay people seems seriously flawed.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Like the one person mentioned about renewing. There should be a limitation based on how long you have to file a case of infringement and that time should be relatively short. To often are we seeing patents dated from 5 years ago and people begin going after deployments that are common space 6 years later. Look the suits filed against voip providers for various things. Referencing materials thought of a long time ago been deployed now for 6 years but someone picked it up in a acquisition and decided to go after it.
Likewise you shouldn't be able to go after a company for using something that you didn't even own at the time you purchased it. For a sadly stupid example if I memory a corpse I shouldn't be able to then sue for wrongful death.
The jury saw that, and decided that that was wrong.
And therein lies the problem. The point of a trial is to decide what is LEGAL. It's great when Right and Wrong correspond to Legal and Illegal, but it doesn't always work out that way. One reason it doesn't is because right vs. wrong can be very subjective, but legal vs. illegal is supposed to be very objective.
I'm concerned that this jury simply got offended that "Samsung copied Apple", and didn't fully consider the prior art that would make such copying perfectly legal. The foreman saying they wanted to "send a message", in clear violation of the judge's instructions, calls the result into question.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
The problems with trial by jury in civil cases go far beyond the specifics of patent law. Patent cases aren't the only ones that rely upon complicated technical and/or legal issues. With criminal trials, we accept that even if juries might not always be as competent as judges, we want them as a safeguard so that the government can't throw people in jail without a representative part of the community saying so. But in civil trials, it's not about the state versus the individual; the issue is whether private party A has to pay money to private party B. Why not have these cases handled by judges, preferably trained in the specific fields at issue? Let's also consider the plight of the jurors: not everyone can easily miss work for long periods of time, and many companies don't pay for jury duty. Again, civic duty might be a plausible justification for doing this for criminal trials, but is it really right to pull private citizens out of their normal lives for months on end to hear a random business dispute between 2 companies?
It's worth pointing out that the jury's role has already been significantly weakened in civil cases. It is not uncommon for judges to order the jury to return a verdict for one particular side in a civil case. (In criminal trials, the judge can order a directed verdict for the defense, but not for the prosecution.) It's also not uncommon for a jury's decision to simply be overridden on the spot by the judge. And even if it survives that, almost all big judgments are modified on appeal. The jury isn't sovereign in deciding civil cases, so what purpose does it serve other than as another stumbling block where things can go wrong?
The US is about the only First World country that has trial by jury in civil cases. There's a reason for this. No one would come up with a system like this today; why should we stick with it just because the Founding Fathers thought it was a good idea 220 years ago?
I have a more revolutionary idea that just sparkled blindingly bright in my mind:
What if I say that any case that a person from the street cannot comprehend should not be a matter of litigation at all?
If the intricacies of alleged Samsung's patent infringement on Apple-owned patents are so complicated that a street person like me need hundreds of volumes of documents to look through, may be there should not be such case at all?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
To me, it's the job of the lawyers to educate and present in layman's terms what the case at hand is all about. If we can have jury trials for murder, where expert witnesses present complex evidence, I don't see why we can't have them for patent cases.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
the jury only took 2-3 days to deliberate
"they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard 'copycat' narratives."
Clearly, the solution is to have juries working at the patent office, scrutinizing each patent for 2-3 days, and patent examiners in the courtroom to accept/reject patent cases using the half-day or less they use now when granting patents in the first place.
That's what you get when you give "personhood" to a corporation, they can be judged by their peers.
I've always wondered what necrophilia would look like. And now since poor Mr Jobs is dead, your comment lets me know. Thank you Space cowboy!
the endless copyright screen on Unix may be instructional. last change I had to view one, back before endless IT mergers, 14 companies from ATT through DEC to HP had copyrights on that screen.
if these cutthroat outfits today would hold their exclusivity for a year max, then license the patents to a common use pool, everybody except the lawyers would make out nicely, thanks.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I like apple products. I have an iPad and iPod touch. Nothing about these products is particularly innovative. There were brick smartphones before iPhone. There were app stores before iPhone. Multitouch existed in the 70's. Icon in grid layout is ANCIENT. What, exactly, is innovative and non-obvious about it? Nothing. It is the natural extension of what was _already_ coming on to the phone market. Heck, their notification center is pretty much a copy of android. Why did they copy it? because it makes sense as a UI. I am all for protecting innovators, but I fail to see any legitimate innovation.
Mod down, -1, Counterfactual.
I don't care if samsung copied or not. Nailing them for infringing patents that never should have been issued in the first place is still the wrong way to punish them.
This is nothing more than using samsung to get precedential leverage when apple goes after others.
The jury system is the ONLY place these trials should be held. Individual Judges can be bought.
Justice is decided by the people.
Have you heard the foreman from the Apple case speak? I was shocked at the level of understanding and sophistication that jury had.
This article is just trying to take advantage of controversy.
No one is going to take away your android device. This ruling won't stifle competition. In fact it will increase it. It's giving actual innovators a chance in the big game.
What it does do is take the "most corrupt company in Asia" and slow them down.
Read "Think Samsung" if you think Samsung is a innocent company who is getting trampled on by the evil Apple.
I've always wondered what necrophilia would look like.
I think that says more about you than about him.
The advantage in the UK of course is a specialized Patent Court with Judges and no juries. These Judges are patent specialists spending their time only looking at Patent cases. They are a very sharp bunch. I recall one incident in which the Judge suspended a complex case so he could go and learn some pretty high level biochemistry from the head of biochemistry at Cambridge.
I think that says more about you than about him.
That he's human?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on most of that.
The South Korean courts actually found that there was mutual infringement taking place and issued injunctions against a large number of devices from both Apple and Samsung. They did not rule in Samsung's favor, as you claim, regarding the question of whether or not they infringed. Rather, they mutually ruled against both Samsung and Apple.
The court in the Netherlands, as far as I can tell, did not make any sort of ruling regarding a lack of infringement on Samsung's part, but rather ruled that Apple had infringed. So while it did go Samsung's way, it had nothing to do with whether or not they infringed.
The UK case is the only one you cited that did rule that Samsung was not infringing, but it was only regarding the iPad vs. the Galaxy Tab 10.1. You'll note that the recently concluded US case reached the same conclusion regarding the Galaxy Tab 10.1, agreeing that it did not infringe. So, that stands in direct contradiction to your claims that whether or not they infringed seems to depend on location. In fact, the the only major disagreement present in any of the cases you cited (as well as the US case) is that the South Korean court ruled that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did infringe.
Patents are already not too bad - 20 years for utility patents, 14 for design patents (like what Apple was mainly contesting). Unlike copyrights the numbers did not get blown out to absurd levels.
We should not (nor is it likely we can) throw out the whole patent system. But we do need to re-think each category of patent and see how useful it is. In particular I think that software patents have no business existing, or at least not in such wide-ranging form as we have today.
But patents, like copyright (as it originally was), are a good tradeoff - you tell us exactly how something works now in return for exclusive use of it for a while. It is releasing everything to the public space in a way many things would not be if there were no patents.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
$12 billion in market capitalization loss says Samsung shareholders and the market agree with you and the jury.
Is that how you think the market works?
Enlighten us.
When you have to have nine people agree/disagree on 700 questions, it will take more than 3 days... It should have taken MUCH longer for them to go through all that...
In fact, the judge had to have the jury correct their verdict since, in at least 2 cases, they decided to award Apple damages even after they said that Samsung didn't infringe in that instance.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The central problem with the current system is that it forces the people actually making things to defend themselves from entrenched interests. We need to redirect that fight so patent holders settle it amongst themselves rather than the wider public.
Set a patent tax at the point of final sale, and have patent holders lodge their claims against products as they come to market. Patent holders themselves will then have the burden of fighting off frivolous patents without troubling the organization actually producing things. The general public will have a direct view into the drag the patent system has on the economy, and will have to be persuaded to accept it. Non-commercial activity won't be impacted, because any percent of zero is still zero.
and I don't suppose that apple's actions couldn't be interpreted as "WAAAAAHHH We don't want any serious competition"
Space Cowboy is flagrantly trolling. He should be modded down, appropriately.
In so far as Samsung referenced the iPhone as a de facto standard of what users want and expect from a touchscreen smart phone, yes. Samsung did indeed set out to copy parts of the iPhone.
However, to claim that such behavior is "crap" and that the jury's decision was correct _requires_ you assume that the patents were entirely valid. If there was prior art, then Samsung no more copied Apple than Apple copied the prior art (and neither innovated). If the design was trivial and uninteresting, then Apple didn't achieve any significant innovation for Samsung to copy... It'd be like complaining that someone used the same typeface as you. Sure you probably spent more time thinking about it then they did to say 'eh... just do what they did', but on the other hand it's uninteresting and unimportant and you don't deserve an international monopoly on it.
So, no, I consider this case (or, the software parts of it) to be exactly software patents are bad and the results it achieved precisely why software parents are so dangerous. Yes, Samsung copied things. Stupid, trivial things. Stupid trivial things that don't benefit society to be disclosed (part of the social 'deal' of patents) nor do they deserve protection. Things that a smaller company without a patent arsenal to build would simply put in as a new feature and forget. Things for which being first to market is payment enough. And yet these things create a billion dollar verdict? I think that's way, _way_ off pace of the "right result".
(And of course, even if you accept the patents, there are cases where some device/patent combinations the jury identified as infringement are clearly incorrect. Oh, and that the jury set out to punish Samsung (by their own admission) rather than try for reasonable damages. Etc. So, actually, I think it was all around a pretty poor decision.)
Because, for a start, if patents were completely nullified worldwide, those products would still exist.
I suggest you need to reconsider your comment.
I would offer the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals as a counterpoint. This court has consistently held that software patents are valid despite the opinion of the USPTO (before 1994) and the Supreme Court. I encourage you to take a look at their recent ruling on Myriad Genetics (not a software patent, but a bad patent ruling nonetheless). Bad things can happen with "expert" courts as well.
I encourage you to read the ruling for the Korean case. It ruled that Samsung violated the "bounce-back" patent, but was innocent as far as copying.
As for the Dutch case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16704461
The advantage in the UK of course is a specialized Patent Court with Judges and no juries. These Judges are patent specialists spending their time only looking at Patent cases. They are a very sharp bunch. I recall one incident in which the Judge suspended a complex case so he could go and learn some pretty high level biochemistry from the head of biochemistry at Cambridge.
In the US, appeals of patents go to the Federal Circuit instead of the regional circuit that all other appeals do. The problem is that the CAFC is the worst thing to happen to patents where a patent on sneezing would be upheld. In fact they are now in a war with the Supreme Court over patents. Just check out Myriad ( I forget the full name of the case, just google "Myriad BRA1".).. SCOTUS keeps ruling things unpatentable and the CAFC keeps trying to work around the restrictions SCOTUS is putting up. This is because the people who end up on the CAFC are generally patent lawyers for big firms.
So how did the UK avoid the same fate?
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
How about having an expert panel actually review patent applications in the first place, and reject those that fail a real examination for prior art?
Oh come on. 2 errors on a form with 1,400 fields on it is *commendable*.
Just because something doesn't go you way doesn't mean it's wrong. What next, only select people should decide if someone is a murderer or not?
The jury's role is to take the law as it stands and see if Samsung did something wrong. They've decided they have and to be honest, I agree.
The system certainly needs fixing but if you accept it as it is now. Samsung deserved to lose.
We could start changing things by making patents non-transferable and only valid for the person / company that inititally applied for it. That would kill off patent trolls.
Also make it so when viewing patents on the website you can easily contact them to point out prior art. This of course would be open to fanboy retardation so you would have to ask for enough information from the person that if they're a time waster you can then go punish them and at least go kick over their computer and plant pots.
Things also have a much shorter life cycle. Perhaps patents shouldn't last as long.
And given that we now have gigantic megacorporations which make it hard for the small guy to even compete, maybe patents enforceable against small businesses until they hit a certain profit level. That would have to be real small businesses, not some corporation spinning off some company that they insist never makes money.
IF they were not mad as hell, they are now. This will be great for everyone around the edges, who will pay for it and clean up the mess.
A little bit more on the Dutch case if you will. Apple appealed the ruling for the tablet and lost (the article), but in the original case, Apple also lost on look and feel (community design in Europe) on the phones, but I guess they didn't appeal that part.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung
Screw "expert tribunal", fight to the death! Each side puts up 12 contenders (to tie it to the jury system), twelve "angry" men (or women, whichever). Then, fight it out Kirk & Spock style, ala koon-ut-kal-if-fee in 'Amok Time'. Damages are based on the number of surviving "jurors".
Because otherwise, the "experts" will just get bought off like every other "regulatory" body in the US and it won't be any fun for anyone. I'd be OK if at least one of the jurors was a VP or higher.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
But it isn't.
Also, Apple doesn't make coats out of puppies.
Software patents *should* exist - for novel ideas, and for limited times.
But if the term is too limited, why would anyone bother filing? They would just keep the technique to themselves.
The problem is that it's too easy for many people to independently come on a good algorithm to use in an application. Possibly for some specialized compression there might be enough true innovation that would warrant a patent - but then how would you market and sell that algorithm in the timeframe a short patent duration would protect you for?
I just do not see any way to "fix" software patents to make them more useful.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why the Apple-Samsung verdict is GOOD for YOU, your KIDS and TECH
Hmmm surprising that a US jury finds in favour of a US corporation and not a South Korean one? Let me see now...
The Gold or Silver metal content of US coins varied throughout the the first century of the United States. To make things more complicated, we had both gold and silver coins at the same time, but one metal's value against the other floated on the open market.
While there were periods of time where we were on a "de facto" Gold- or Silver-standard, and periods of time where the metal prices were stable enough against each other that we were on a "de facto" bi-metal standard, it wasn't until the Gold Standard Act was passed in 1900 that we were officially on the Gold Standard. That lasted less than 35 years. With a few interruptions, the US was on a de-facto "Gold Standard" until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee, from the planet Keshykk.
If Chewbacca is a Wookiee you must acquit!
Of the top of my head I see four obvious suspects for such a capitalization loss:
1. Investors/speculators agreeing with the Jury.
2. Investors/speculators thinking that other investors/speculators will agree with the Jury.
3. Investors/speculators thinking that the legal system overall will side with the Jury (appeals and future similar cases).
4. Investors/speculators thinking that it will cost Samsung lots of money (directly or just opportunity costs in having to change things) and hence make them significantly less competitive.
Only one of those involves actually agreeing with the Jury themselves. I'm sure there are a bunch more too.
Many if not all cases are complex.
And the jurors are not qualified, not that anyone can be qualified to hand down justice.
Still it all round is not a horrible system.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Really? Give me some examples of "legitimate innovation", please. Because I'm really curious as to what you consider innovation? iOS isn't innovative? Pinch-to-zoom, bounce-at-scroll-end, inertial flick scrolling, no keyboard, no-scroll-wheel-no-nav-keys, simple app install-deinstall, tap-and-hold to rearrange, that all existed together in one integrated package? Real innovation only seems "obvious" in hindsight. The best proof is the huge slew of criticisms which came out about the iPhone when it first came out. All the moaning about the shit it was missing or didn't do but absolutely needed.
Before the iPhone, the BlackberryOS was considered the nadir of handheld computing. And Android back then looked a heck of a lot like a Blackberry OS. Now that paradigm considered a backwater. The move to mouse+gui wasn't that natural an extension from keyboard+tty, it was innovation. The move from the Blackberry+Palm+WinCE paradigm to iOS wasn't a "natural extension". It only seems natural in hindsight.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
I wonder if the jury's investment portfolio's were analyzed to ensure none of their direct holdings, or indirect holding's through mutuals, etc contained either Apple or Samsung shares...
I encourage you to read the ruling for the Korean case. It ruled that Samsung violated the "bounce-back" patent, but was innocent as far as copying.
It was innocent of infringement so far as the look-and-feel patents went, but not so for the bounce-back patent, as you pointed out, which means that they were indeed ruled to be infringing on those devices, hence the injunctions that went out. So, yes, they did find that Samsung was innocent on some counts, but not on others. I still feel that your original statement was too broad and thus inaccurate, since it suggests that they were innocent of infringement on all counts, which is not the case.
As for the Dutch case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16704461
Thanks for the info. I had looked around, but the only stuff I saw was some pretty bland reporting that made no mention of those details. I saw your followup post as well. I do appreciate the additional information, and I stand corrected.
The dadgum questionaire that they put before them was 700 freaking questions!!!!
Don't you think that there was a failure by the judge and the court to boil it down to simple issues?
There may be finer points of law here, but the Judge should rule on those and present "The Question" to the Jury.
The Fail here was presenting The Maze to the jury. Guess they figured that if it wasn't important enough to distill down to the essence, then their attempts to walk The Maze weren't very important either...
The whole idea of juries is to reduce the jumble down to the important points that need to be decided. If it's too complex, then either reduce the complexity, or kick it back to the petitioner to submit separate points of petition.
The point of a trial is to decide what is LEGAL.
No, the point of a (civil) trial is to decide whether a wrong was committed and if so how it should be redressed. Within that, the jury has the role of deciding what is true. The jury's role is to sift fact from fiction.
If that's the case I would *love* to see a crackdown on perjury for lying on federal applications.
It's not just jurors that get these things wrong, judges have shown they don't understand these issues either.
Apple has done pretty well off the bounce-back patent. Samsung lost on that in the Dutch court as well. Samsung would be wise to just get rid of TouchWiz, It is killing them in the courts.
My original comment was only intended to address the designs and not the software patents.
Jurors are not supposed to know the people involved in the trial, it creates huge bias.
What I want to know is how did they find so many people who did not know Apple or Samsung?
Because, of course, if a juror had a iPad and liked it (or just saw an apple ad, or read an article by someone saying that the iPad inspired these other devices) he/she would be biased towards Apple. So of course the only fair trial you could have would be one where all the jurors had never even heard of Apple or Samsung.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Samsung will have ample opportunity to argue that the jury was wrong before judges knowledgeable of patent law. Of course, you will no doubt claim that any Samsung adverse decision is due to judicial bias. Fortunately your personal opinion is not of much interest except perhaps to your mother.
But what if all people in the jury were color blind and one that claimed to be able to see color, claimed that the evidence had blue paint on it? Would that still be the concept of the US law?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
You can't eat gold. You can't grow crops on it. You can't plow with it. Well, you can, but plows made out of 24 karat gold aren't as good as steel ones.
If you look at the things most American consumers bought from the date our Constitution became effective until the late 1960s, we did experience changes in prices. Sometimes this was inflation, sometimes it was deflation.
Here are some examples, looking only at an "apples to apples" comparison of identical goods:
1800-1849: $20 in 1800 is worth $9.78 in 1849
1850-1899: $20 in 1850 is worth $20.02 in 1999
Skipping 1900, the year we went on the Gold Standard
1901-1932, the true "Gold Standard" years: $20 in 1901 is worth $32.71 in 1932
Skipping 1933, the year we went off the Gold Standard, and 1934, the first year of the $35/Troy Ounce fixed price of gold.
1935-1967, when Gold is fixed at $35/Troy Ounce: $20 in 1935 is worth $48.68 in 1967.
Remember, during several periods of American history, large, exploitable gold reserves were found in America and in other parts of the world. As supply goes up, the price relative to other commodities tends to go down. During other periods, the demand for gold for jewelry, industrial use, and other uses increased and prices relative to other commodities likely went up. During practically all of our nation's history, gold has also been seen as a "safe haven," which means its price goes up relative to other commodities during times of increasing instability and it goes down during times of increasing stability.
Source for inflation figures:
Inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Oops, forgot the citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States_dollar&oldid=503255187
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why would you consider the article a troll, or flamebait? Just because it is not worshiping Apple?
In my opinion, there are two ways to view this case:
1. The way (as far as I understand) the jury viewed it: Apple has the patents and this is a given. It doesn't matter whether this is right or wrong, legal or illegal. Samsung infringed the patents, so it has to pay.
2. Samsung copied Apple's patents, but Apple shouldn't have the patents in the first place because of prior art/being obvious etc.
The thing is, the legality of Apple's patents wasn't on trial here. Samsung was on trial for violating Apple's patents. As you said, #2 is the fair way, but #1 is the legal way. Sad thing that we have come to viewing things this way though.
Apple is failing? Geez, what would success look like?
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
That, and in the case of on icon looking another one falls under trade mark or copyright, not patents.
are supposed to be in charge of this country. We do not elect the judicial branch of our government, so we need juries to help keep our fingers in the system. If any aspect of the legal system is "too complicated for lay people to understand", the solution is to simplify the system, NOT to remove the people from the equation.
+5 Insightful on complete bullshit. Congrats.
Hindsight is always 20/20. If it was so obvious, why didn't anyone else do it? Why did it take years for any other phone to catch up? The reason is because it was in fact innovative. Everyone knew apple was coming out with a phone before they released the first iPhone, yet somehow none of Apple's competitors could still catch up for several years. The fact of the matter is that the first iPhone completely changed the landscape. It was most certainly innovative.
Um no, the loss of capital is due to the shareholders watching what the outcome was, whether they agree or not.
Even if I think a company is in the right, when an investor sees them lose a court case, they know their value will plummet, so they sell. That's how most investors think.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You didn't actually read the verdict, did you?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Samsung copied Apple flagrantly, not *just* copied, but *flagrantly* copied. The jury saw that, and decided that that was wrong. The result was that Apple won its case.
We're supposed to reward effort, and not reward those who cheat. Despite the clamour from the android community, pretty much everyone I've spoken to who aren't emotionally invested in the result are "pro" the jury and think it was a fair result. Samsung- (and by extension Android-) fans, deal, and move on in life. Or hate. Your call.
Simon.
Ok, so when it comes to UI design.. it's ok for everyone else to copy from everyone else.. Apple can copy from Xerox, Microsoft can copy from Apple.. KDE, Gnome, ETC can copy from both. Yet, Samsung cannot copy from Apple?
It's not a matter of fanboy whining. The issue people are talking about is that the jury ignored portions of testimony and evidence to come to a conclusion and award money. If you were on trial for murder, would you want the jury to ignore your alibi stating that you were in a bar with 100+ witnesses when the murder happened 100 miles away?
because their is the recorded of Google telling Samsung they shouldn't copy Apple, and Samsung doing it anyways.
So there was no reasons to devel into the technical aspect to great detail.
Remember, the Jury isn't there to regulate the patent, only to find whether or not the violate the patents as it is.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps the jury disagreed with the complexity and the Congress who created it. It sounds like they nullified prior art as a defense. Just because you and I think that should be part of the law, doesn't mean Joe Average thinks it should be part of the law. I'm unhappy with the jury's decision in this case, but in a way I think there's a certain elegance to the jury saying "fuck you and all your complexity." They pissed on Congress and their complex maze of exceptions, and I don't think that is necessarily bad, even if the outcome for this particular case was.
Ignoring that complexity, of course, makes for a really hard world to live in (you simply can't avoid infringing). But if prior art is no longer a reliable defense, then I think that's an argument for Congress to simplify the situation by repealing bullshit design patents altogether. If it's too complex to adjudicate, too impossible for businesses to operate within, then throw it away. Then it won't ever get to the point where juries have to heed or ignore prior art.
Patents are as complex as other industrial policies like subsidies or regulatory regimes. When disputes arise, they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard "copycat" narratives.
The same case could be made that voters have no place in democracy. And is: Those seeking to concentrate political and economic strength in the hands of the few and powerful pose governance as a choice between decision making by wise and altruistic "experts" or by the ignorant and selfish common people. The myth of benevolent despotism is as old as the hills.
But that rhetoric was busted long ago. "Industrial Policy" is a euphemism for corporate welfare. "Expert tribunals" are typically comprised of those expert in only cronyism and graft if not incompetent ideologues. So the plan is that a small group of politically appointed experts will assign penalties and grant awards of billions of dollars. What could possibly go wrong?
For those who are not aware, the plan to enact all-powerful government controlled by the benevolent and wise has never really worked out . The actual course has been to grant government powers and then debate our preference for rule by the corrupt few or the incompetent many. (See TFA and surrounding comments.) Perhaps instead we should all consider before granting more power to government that it will not be wielded by wise and benevolent philosopher kings. Those with the knowledge that government power by any system is often misapplied and abused are less willing to grant power to government.
Fundamentally, the choice between administering patent law with "expert tribunals" or trial by jury is a false dichotomy, for we could remedy the problem as well by abolishing patents.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The Jury is deciding based on the patent system, as is, not making decesion about the patent system itself.
Samsung infringed. It's pretty clear since they showed Google told them they where infringing and to change their design, and Samsung didn't.
"This is nothing more than using Samsung..."
If by nothing more you mean 1.5 Billion Dollars. If precedent is there only goal, they would have gone after a smaller fish.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The thing is, the legality of Apple's patents wasn't on trial here.
Yes they were, and that is why prior art was part of the trial and jury instructions.
How could one person force 11 other people to vote his way? And what "send a message" are you talking about? A message about what?
Or in the Apple-Samsung case, simply by claiming to be an expert on patents, prior art AND jury duty because he filed a patent himself and was on juries three times already.
Also, there were NINE jurors, not twelve.
As for sending the message... Well, besides the "Velvin Hogan is Batman" (4th jury duty? What is he, a professional juror?) there's that literal quote of his...
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
Which is kind of an issue, since that is EXACTLY what the jury was instructed NOT to do.
There. Now you know.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So was it ok for the jury to blatantly disregard evidence of prior art "because it was too much to wade through"?
If the patents are bogus, infringement is a moot point.
in general 3 IT professionals on this case but what about others that may have 1 or 0.
Now 1 is bad as you can get a very 1 sided view of things.
or what smart phones the jury had... We all know that the Apple/Android war spreads far and takes many innocents.
Much as I despise the decision the jury came to in the Samsung/Apple trial, I still think this a jury is the best way of settling such cases. This jury did reflect the feeling and legal intuition of the community it was selected from, and its decision wasn't obviously in contradiction to the law (otherwise, it would have gotten thrown out).
The real problem with the Samsung/Apple case wasn't the jury, it was the patent office that granted these bogus patents in the first place. The patent office is filled with supposed experts who grant these patents in the first place; I don't see how putting the same kinds of experts in charge of the legal cases would improve the situation; I think it would like make things worse
Photos of Samsung devices before/after iPhone 2007 were enough to raise serious questions of copying/infringement. Samsung e-mails did the rest, particularly as concerns willful infringement.
What's so complicated here that a jury can't handle?
If this Jury was around during the first Fords, there would be no other car.
And where is the guarantee that experts will be any more attentive to testimony? The jury system is imperfect but likely still better than the alternatives.
That doesn't mean we can't improve the jury system. For example, we might ask juries to provide more justifications for their decisions and allow those to be used within some limits in challenging a verdict as well.
They tried expert tribunals. They're called "settlement talks". They didn't work, so it went to jury.
pretty much everyone I've spoken to who aren't emotionally invested in the result are "pro" the jury and think it was a fair result.
Simon.
Really? Of EVERYONE I've spoken to who wasn't either an Apple Fanboy or Android user, most were disgusted with Apple for forcing litigation in order to rub out the competition. BTW, glad you used your name instead of AC, because you deserve the Flamebait -1 rating for the comment you made.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All plaintiffs "prosecute" their case.
And while "guilt" and "innocence" are becoming to be reserved for criminal liability, they are both appropriate terms to use with negligence or infringement.
Remove the lawyers. I've often heard the bottom of the ocean is a good start.
Politicians generations back could write simple laws that were short and people could understand. Now we have legal coding that resembles a computer obfuscation contest where even the experts can't understand it. Take the simple banking regulation that prevented the collapse that was what? 4 pages? The new "stronger" one still doesn't do what the old one did and is massive complex and we only have to take somebody's word that it is stronger than the old one despite allowing the practice that caused depressions TWICE. (keep in mind they'll never ever call something a depression again until almost everybody on the street does first.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The problem is, that the jury admitted to skipping entire parts of the case... ... uneducated jury when it comes to patents.
Perhaps they were uneducated because they skipped entire parts of the case?
If the patent system is too complicated to get a fair trial by our peers, maybe we should simplify it.
No, not one of them were iPhone owners. And the foreman's wife had a Samsung dumbphone.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Because they have vaginas. And anyone who owns physical property can't sit on a theft or burglary or robbery trial? Only ascetic monks can sit on those?
So the average juror is too dumb, but a patent holder is too smart?
Bullshit. Anyone can be fair if he puts his mind to it.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Anyone who owns physical property can't sit on a theft or burglary or robbery trial? Women can't sit on rape trials because they have vaginas?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
US experts to judge between US company and foreign company... We all know the outcome!
Groklaw is an obviously anti-patent site. Don't quote them as authority on mainstream patent law.
The whole point of this article is that the average juror isn't smart enough for these cases (forgetting the 7th Amendment).
Now we have a foreman with a patent, and he's too smart? Catch-22 much? I guess we need these ivory tower philosopher kings to administer your "software and hardware should be free, fuck Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" ethos.
"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions."
Fucking lie. Stop relying on Groklaw and listen to the actual foreman's interview:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-vs-samsung-foreman-we-focused-on-evidence-eRnU07ChTjeV8MuvEiBSxw.html
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
>>Patent law is too complex for the average person.
If not, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Who better than the average person to decide if the average person is confused by dilution of trademark/patent when buying a phone?
And there is that whole BILL OF RIGHTS thing.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Criticize their decision in shorter time. Amazing! Sign that guy up for jury service!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
How about leave the system as it is, and 5% of all patent costs go to a fund who's sole purpose is to reveal prior art and offending patents. The targeted patents are based on some algorithm that will return the most to society. This fund should also be open to donations from geeks to big companies who has a say where their own money is spent. If Apple wants to fight a Google prior art I am good for that even if Apple is the devil's devil.
There will be a connection between the number of patents and the funds income. There still is intensive in applying for patents.
and you don't see a problem with that?
The last several days the whining from the pro-Android fanboys has been incessant. When will it stop? I haven't observed this much whining since elementary school. Waaaa. I broke a rule and got punished for it. The rules aren't fair. Waaaaahhh. PROTIP: Go grow up and learn to live in an adult's world.
You are Troll -1 modded down for being a little douche
If the Samsung Space Chickens could have figured a way to utter the magical letters 'DNA' to the jury, they would have won completely, because to US juries, DNA = absolute guilt*
* - even though it is far simpler to synthesize and plant DNA on evidence than say, replicating fingerprints.
When disputes arise, they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard "copycat" narratives.'"
Absolutely. We need these things to be decided by experts like the clever guys at the US Patent Office who granted the patents in the first place, or the judge who originally set the precedent that software was patentable, or maybe the expert lawyers drafting New Zealand's new patent laws.
NB: for the avoidance of doubt - yes, I'm being ironic.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
(yes Apple is failing - it wouldn't be suing like it is if it wasn't)
Whether on top or bottom, crushing your competition using any means possible is nearly universal.
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm#maintain
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
I realize I'm posting late, but the point is its a very small variation. At most 100%. Compared to off to the races paper money printing press once we got off the standard.
Basically $20 was coincidentally "about an ounce of gold". Which in modern rapidly becoming more worthless money would be about two grand. Which is probably a fairly reasonable cutoff for a federal vs local case, rather than $20.
Also its an interesting anecdote often quoted as constitutional "proof" we need to be on the gold standard. Not necessarily saying I agree with it, but I can report that oddly enough no one on /. mentioned that traditional ... situation or whatever.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
If the validity of a patent is a matter of law, then that part of the trial can and probably should be handled by a judge, not a jury.
What SHOULD happen in such cases is that the judge orders the patent office to initiate a high-priority, detailed re-examination.
By "detailed" I mean with a clear explanation of why the patent is or is not legally valid, and with a nearly exhaustive search for prior art including asking for help from the public.
By high-priority I mean putting routine patent applications on hold if necessary.
If the patent is found to be completely valid, the party seeking to overturn it will pay the costs. If it is found to be partially valid the party seeking to overturn it will pay part of the costs. Other costs will generally be paid for by the patent office (i.e. spread out over patent and other fees) on the grounds that the patent office is the one that goofed up in the first place.
Why should the patent office do the re-examination? Because in theory, they are experts in patents. If the judge is dissatisfied with the quality of the re-examination (not the outcome - the judge should be neutral), he should have the right to make the do it over and over again until they do it right, but this time the patent office (i.e. all who apply for patents) will pay all of the costs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
TL:DR
Jurrys have the right to nullify the law as it relates to a specific case.
If the jurry didn't know that they had this right, one could declare a non judgement and put in objections onto the court record.
See the fully informed jurry association.
Patents do not apply to software. You cannot patent a mathematical formula which software is. PERIOD.
I dunno what it is about patent law, but whenever the topic comes up on Slashdot, normally intelligent, reasoning individuals become incapable of coming to rational, even-handed conclusions -- and that applies especially to conclusions about their own qualifications to comment on the topic. A person who would never dream of telling his oncologist how she should treat a blastoma seems to have no problem making a patently silly (sorry, couldn't resist!) pronouncement that patent litigation would run more smoothly if juries were banned.
And, as a postscript that falls into the "painfully obvious category," anybody who's sat through even one infringement case knows that few judges outside the CAFC have all that deep of an understanding of patent law. Not only would mandating that patent infringement proceedings be conducted as bench trials set dangerous precedent that might undermine a vital precept of our legal system, but it wouldn't even be sufficient to produce better outcomes. Move along, there's nothing of interest here.
"However, to claim that such behavior is "crap""
Except, that's not what I did.
I said Samsung 'comes off looking like crap' if you look back at the highlights of the trial. I was referring to Samsung's actions during the legal case in that sentence, not its actions prior to that. Seriously: forget for a moment what you think about what patents should be, and just look at the detailed reports from Groklaw &c about Samsung's actual behaviour during the trial. It was a terribly conducted case on their part. They should sue their legal team.
You don't have to ask for a jury trail. You can ask for a judge to decide. Having a judge decide will be more likely to follow technical rigor of precedent and legal theory. But you choose that option. Or you choose a jury trail. That's something you negotiate at the beginning of the trail in opening hearings.
Samsung accepted a jury trail by choice; Samsung chose to game the trail by accepting a jury trail. That is their choice and they lost their bet. That is all.
Unfortunately, this viewpoint neglects the fact that mathematicians, as a class in society, have ethical conflicts of interest with respect to the nature and scope of the mathematics, and thus reserving decisions on matters of mathematics to the numerate will sooner or later produce a badly messed up mathematical system.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
gosgog:
In this IT age, innovation is obviously extremely important. PATENTING, started many many years ago to protect ripoffs. Nowadays the complexities involved are way beyond dependence of average Jury Law. So it seems to me that the world of Patent conflicts and accusations thereof should be decided by a Panel of experts in the Patent Office itself and not in an ordinary court of law, where possibly even the appointed Judge may not have sufficient knowledge. This would save both Time & Expense not to mention idiot verdicts and appeals resultant.