Slashdot Mirror
Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction
another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
That's for criminal cases, and only if you actually exercise your right to a trial (most people do not, and if they did, the system would be overwhelmed and utterly incapable of handling that many cases).
Palm trees and 8
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
Hello pot, kettle here!
I don't think you understand how FRAND operates. FRAND patents have to be put in a pool available to all for a set fee. They are essential in order to be able to operate in the space, things like communicating with cell towers... whereas a rounded rectangle patent isn't.
What PJ has pointed out was the stupidity of the current patent system where Apple is able to argue a patent for tapping the screen is worth an order of magnitude more than a patent -- if removed -- would render a device unable to function in any way with any modification, such as its radio transmitter.
Basically, you either have a strong bias for apple, are intentionally trying to slur groklaw, or are ignorant. There isn't anything wrong with being ignorant, but you shouldn't point firngers at others because of it.
Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.
CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.
Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.
Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.
Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc.
From the voire dire, Judge Koh talking to Hogan:
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your instructions. ...
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go, I think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr. Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. let's please start with Ms. Halim.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued when I was at weitek, also I.C. Design. Another one was at silicon graphics.
THE COURT: And it was also on I.C. Design?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, right.
THE COURT: Okay. Were patents issued?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you were the inventor on both?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience -- basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. ...
THE COURT: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr. Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during the trial?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr. Tepman?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think so, too.
It doesn't seem like the voire dire transcript entirely agrees with you. He was specifically instructed to not bring his patent experience into the jury room.