Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-can-see-clearly-now dept.

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."

40 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Case Reset... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Case Reset... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whilst I'm very much an Apple fanboy, I hate this kind of patent nonsense. The whole case seems to be a very odd affair especially since the companies are so closely tied. Reminds me of NetApp vs SUN and the whole COW patent issue with ZFS. Those two settled their differences to stop hurting their customers. Apple really doesn't need to do all this as they have the better (imho) product and let's face it if we got rid of patents like this we'd be all be much better off.

    2. Re:Case Reset... by oxdas · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Case Reset... by oxdas · · Score: 3

      The rest of that instructions was

      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?

      Mr. Hogan educating the jury on his experience with registering his patents and his understanding of the finer points of patent law would not violate this?

    4. Re:Case Reset... by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      The rest of that instructions was

      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?

      Mr. Hogan educating the jury on his experience with registering his patents and his understanding of the finer points of patent law would not violate this?

      Depends on what exactly was said in the jury room. If he said "here's my life experience and I can talk about the process I went through, but those are different facts from this, so don't assume that what I went through was the same," then yeah, that's that's the "obviously, you will bring your life experience to your role as juror" part. If he said, "the judge is wrong, here's the right law," then that's not deciding the case on the law as they're instructed. Without a record of exactly what was said in the jury room, it could be either.

    5. Re:Case Reset... by oxdas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fortunately, we know from Hogan what was said.

      Emily Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused?

      Vel Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's just get that out of the way first.

      Emily Chang: Now when you first got into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right?

      Vel Hogan: Yes.

      Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway overwhelmingly in Appleâ(TM)s favour?

      Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe lean the other way.

      Emily Chang: Why?

      Vel Hogan: Why? We were at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we would call an aha moment.

      Emily Chang: Um hmmm.

      Vel Hogan: And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent.

      Emily Chang: Really?

      Vel Hogan: Really. And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went patent by patent claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't valid.

      Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about?

      Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa.

      Or how about...

      Hogan: To try to make it as easy as possible - I have addressed this in other interviews that I have had - what it amounts to is there has been a big fuss since the deliberation that prior art was not considered. Prior art was considered.

      When we had to determine the validity of Apple's patent against the charges of Samsung's with the prior art examples, what we had to do - to make it clear - is that not only did we have to validate, if you will, the Apple patent, but in looking at the prior art we had stipulations in the law that tested both sides and if the test wasn't passed then it was clear either the patent was valid or it wasn't.

      Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

      And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

      continued from the same interview...

      And we're talking about Samsung's patent claim about combining a mobile phone with email [and a camera]?

      Hogan: Exactly, in fact that is the one issue that we left on Wednesday night, the first day of deliberation, that had hung us up. And I, being the foreman, said because we had

  2. It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run... by laudunum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?

  3. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers

    That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."

  4. The irony... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:The irony... by lexman098 · · Score: 2

      I guess you haven't been paying attention. The galaxy s3 came out months before the iphone5. There are also other very nice, high-end android phones on the market. As far as the software goes, iOS is a personal preference. I like the tweakability of android.

    2. Re:The irony... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compared to all the other companies who created the technologies in the iPhone? Apple doesn't have a team of voice recognition or natural language processing experts, they don't have a materials science team, and even the core of iOS was developed outside of Apple. All Apple has contributed is making things look smooth and pretty.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:The irony... by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.

      That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:The irony... by hierophanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what he is saying, is that the existing players put in 95% percent of the work that created the final product, not to say apple didnt contribute their own development. car analogy: but if you buy a car, and paint it red, you shouldnt be given credit for building the entire car.

      you are lying to yourself if you think the existing players werent creating an 'iOS experience' before apple came along.

    5. Re:The irony... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.

      That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.

      Errm, mind telling us who wrote the other 99%?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:The irony... by hierophanta · · Score: 2

      our difference of opinion is:

      I thought the original iphone is 'the same old shit' with a new paint job.

      you thought the original iphone is some new shit. (i say original because you reference the point in time when the iphone was released)

      i feel that: if you dissect the phones' functionality you see that it is 99.99% same shit. with that .01% looking like a mountain because of some excellent marketing.

  5. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

    Exactly. its not Apple's lawyers job to make a case for samsung. It would be like the District attorney talking about the murder suspects charity work, how stupid the crime lab can be and how difficult it is to really know, like anything for certain.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  6. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  7. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.

  8. Bad summary by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    ... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it. Wonder how they found 12 people without cell phones to be on a jury so as not to be influenced by what they had - or how the patent master was left as foreman. I can't understand how either side saw him as a plus.

  9. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.

    --
    Would you like a slice of toast?
  10. Samsung marketing hard at work... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me or does it seem like Samsung is hard at work trying to sway public opinion with these stories of late? I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China?!?

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?

      The problem is that virtually all consumer technology has this issue, and since we would like to keep our toys, we conveniently ignore abuses like these. There's really no pleasent way around it.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  11. Something is wrong with PJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IAAL.

    I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

    I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.

    (It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).

    Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.

    1. Re:Something is wrong with PJ by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

      I think you misunderstood the point. Samsung's patents have clear value and pretty much everyone who makes a smart phone has to license them, typically by cross licensing their own patents. Apple's patents are about design elements, may well be invalid or unenforceable and they are not interested in licensing them anyway. It's a problem for Apple because then they have to pay cash to license FRAND patents, and when looking at their net worth and assets such patents are generally worth very little if anything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Something is wrong with PJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Something is wrong with PJ by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Funny

      IAAL.

      I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

      I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.

      (It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).

      Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.

      I bolded the part of your text that is actually relevant to the topic at hand.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  12. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients. A criminal lawyer may actually know for a fact that their client did actually commit the crime, but he still is required to represent him as best as possible even if his client is pleading not guilty. They really cannot do anything other than misrepresent the truth in that case.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  13. Groklaw has jumped the Samsung by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, right "unredacted" documents suddenly show they say the exact opposite of before - but why Samsung didn't show them in court remains a "mystery", it were originally theirs (just like the prior art they couldn't hand over in time - a looong time). Somehow nobody noticed that Apple had the "un" blacked in "We must make something more unlike the iPhone"

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    But hey, PJ proves it - by selectively only quoting what fits her agenda. And what has actually been in the "redacted" documents all along.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  14. Lawyers by jwthompson2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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."

    Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!

    Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?

    --
    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
  15. Re:That's how it is supposed to work by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A car that is in good working order is still going to crash if it has a bad driver.

    Similiarly, if you get a jury foreman who lies through his teeth just to get a chance to get even with the defendant, you are going to have problems.

    There are decisions that can only be made by people, and people are also good at manipulating things. That is why no system will ever be perfect as long as people are involved.

  16. Patent is different than copyright by Ibhuk · · Score: 2

    Evidence of Samsung copying Apple could have been useful to support a showing of intentional infringement, but is unnecessary to support a judgment of infringement of a patent. Patent protection is a strong IP protection. It protects against any infringement of the patent no matter how it is derived. Copyright gives the IP holder protection from copying, so it is relatively week. If copying can't be proved there isn't a case for copyright infringement.

  17. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Shagg · · Score: 2

    Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...

    --
    Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  18. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.

  19. and.. by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and since Apple is now coming out with bigger screens (iPhone 5), it appears that Apple is copying Samsung.

  20. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by n0ano · · Score: 3, Informative

    In re: misrepresent the truth.

    You need to take a legal ethics class (go figure, lawyers are required to take an ethics class). A lawyer is not allowed to lie to the court, either in what they say or the documents they file. It makes it very hard for lawyers when they `know` that a client is guilty. Yes lawyers have to represent their clients as best they can but, at the same time, they cannot lie to the court. I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.

    PS: IANAL but my wife is and I still remember when she took her ethics class.

    --
    Don Dugger
    "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
  21. Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. by sjames · · Score: 2

    If I do it right, you cannot tell the difference between my bare thumb and a shiny chrome plated thimble. Magicians use that to their advantage all the time and it can be accomplished even when standing 3 feet away.

  22. Re:Actually... by oztiks · · Score: 2

    P/E is one way to value a company. Apple's price though dependant on P/E isn't the only ratio that's a factor. The P/E has slipped but its the stability of the business model which also employs Apple's desirability as a share price.

    In essence, the good raving tech reviews, its retail presence and its commercial support all factor into the equation.

    Tech reviews are slipping and it's not making expected analyst outcomes regarding sales, though it still has a tremendous way to go, in some ways the GP does have a point, even if he/she doesn't know the root of where that point lays.

    The discussion of if Apple will gain a 1T marketcap has successfully been taken off the table and out of the reach of what considered a reality.

  23. Re:Actually... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    What effing world do you live in? If Android is actually taking over the world, it's doing so because it offers more choices. It's not like Apple, where fannies only get one or two new products every year and salivate between releases. If this plethora of choices is somehow evil, I am gobsmacked at having thought otherwise my whole life.

    --
    Infuriate left and right