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."
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.
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?
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
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.
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
Would you like a slice of toast?
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.
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
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.
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.