Slashdot Mirror
Misunderstanding of Prior Art May Have Led to Apple-Samsung Verdict
One of the interesting tidbits that came out of last week's billion-dollar verdict in Apple v. Samsung was that the jury's foreman, a patent holder himself, was instrumental in leading the other members through the various complicated infringement claims. Now, Groklaw analyzes an interview the man gave with Bloomberg News (video), in which his statements reveal a basic misunderstanding of what qualifies as prior art. Quoting Groklaw:
"In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it: 'The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.' That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor. It doesn't have to run at all. It can be words on a piece of paper. (If you don't believe little old me, here's a lawyer noticing the video too now.) ... The foreman, in answering criticisms, says that the jury paid close attention to the jury instructions. But looking at this one, did they? I'm sure they meant to, and I'm also sure they did their best according to what they understood. But this was an error, and it's one I don't think the judge can ignore, if anyone brings it to her attention."
And pay careful attention to the quote in the summary: the juror says they debated the prior art, then he says they "skipped that one". Hmm. He does not say they failed to consider prior art. He says the first one was bogging them down with the debate on prior art because they found it hard to believe there was not any. Then he says "they skipped that one", which, in context, probably means they put all questions regarding that patent aside to move on and see if the others were easier. But they did rule on it, which means they came back to it--and given their reports that debate was heated, it seems unlikely that they put it aside for a while, then came back and arbitrarily found for Apple without finishing their consideration of the evidence. It is really not reasonable to read that quote as saying the jury skipped consideration of prior art.
Ha, Slashdot is so pro-Apple it's painful. "We skipped that one" turns into "we skipped that one and came back to it" and that gets modded up despite there being no such context in the original source! Oh Slashdot, you so funny when you act like a kid and mod up the other kids!
Here, let me try:
'The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.'
Naw, like, you just didn't read far enough, man. Hmmm, doesn't that sound fishy to you? I'm just asking questions, don't attack me ... but you know the original context said they took the instructions and studied them for eight weeks and then began enumerating every English sentence ever and considering it as prior art before they moved on. And even then they came back to it. I'm just asking questions, don't get mad at me that this is totally the way patent trials should work and Apple was right and they should get more than a billion dollars and USA #1 USA #1 USA #1.
Actually, because of a combination of bad lawyering and bad judging (mostly the latter), we ended up seeing more evidence than the jury did.
No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview.
The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.
That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact.
Hilarious irony in that you say "...giant spectacular leap...shit job" - very strong opinionated adjectives and then follow it up by saying it's "clear fact." Fail!
No, you chose to see something in the sentence that you quoted where "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" would have been a legitimate response.
In fact, "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" is not a reasonable or legitimate response to "Actually, because of a combination of bad lawyering and bad judging (mostly the latter), we ended up seeing more evidence than the jury did." It makes no sense. It's stupid. And you should be embarrassed for hitting the "Submit" button. Next time, read, attempt to understand, and then reply.
I read, I understood. You just claim that you saw more evidence. Really? More? Did you see how many pages they had? And you saw more "evidence" (not opinion)? Take your own advice before posting.