Slashdot Mirror
Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too
SternisheFan writes with this news from the Register: "Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the U.S., but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent infringement case against the Korean firm, it set about pursuing another win in the form of permanent injunctions on the products in the case. The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobile phones and tablets in the U.S., but the judge said the company hadn't done enough to legally support such a ban." More details at Groklaw.
I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.
This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P
Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?
... whether all this was worth it.
I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.
I personally doubt that it was worth it.
Should have sued in East Texas. Both of them. Each other. That way both of them would have won: Apple their injunction and billion dollars, Samsung their injunction rejection and erasure of the billion dollars. Both happy :) Hang on...
Sammy mobes? seriously?
Samsung drops Apple injunctions in Europe.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
And if you buy their products, you support evil.
The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
I hope every sane person will realize that both Apple and Samsung will appeal the rulings. And I agree with the concensus that the just was simply tired of dealing with both parties and the mess that this case had become.
The more interesting rulings over Apple's design patents, though, I hope remain. The matter of jury misconduct, I hope fails. Even if Samsung "should have known" in advance is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The juror did not properly answer the screening questions and thus had violated any oaths and qualifications for being a jurist. Further, the jurist provided his own evidence and became a biased party in the case. In my view, jury misconduct is clear and obvious.
I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.
Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence. Laziness isn't an excuse to change a verdict.
On most sites, the subject of this topic is reversed: "Judge says no to retrial, but also says no to ban"
You really think the potential reversal of a $1B penalty is somehow lesser to getting a ban with all bark and not bite approved?
Wake up slashdot, you're losing what little objectivity you had,
I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts
Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence.
Why do you think that makes things even? The prosecution could take years to prepare a case before submission if they want to. They have all the time in the world. So the defending side obviously will always have less time.
which is totally what she said
The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobes and tablets in the US,
fuck you, moron
The judge refused Samsung's response to a NEW Apple claim against them, despite this being within time.
Such evidence being for one of the claims that the jury WERE considering infringement.
PS how can they ignore prior art for "non infringement" unless they looked at evidence for the application of the patent (i.e. scoping prior art)?
I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.
Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.
Apple needed evidence from Samsung, the discovery process. Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed and some of which Samsung handed over late. Apple can make allegations but the actual proof of the process of how Samsung developed their ideas was not something Apple had prior to the case.
No, but being shorted on time is.
My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.
Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.
NO patent infringement warrants a product ban. The whole point of patents is to allow others to create products using an invention while rewarding the inventor. It is NOT there to give the inventor exclusive rights to the invention. The only recourse for patent infringement should be monetary payments, and if you don't like it then don't patent your invention, keep it a trade secret.
I'm not sure about the US legal system in this regard, but is the $1.05bn figure (arrived at by the Jury) now a fixed "fine" or is it just a figure used by the judge to decide what penalty to impose?
Kinda like the jury gives the Judge a guideline, but she is the one that finally decides what the judgement and amount will be.
What a laughably stupid statement. The purpose of patents is most certainly NOT to allow others to create products, it is to encourage invention and the release of information. The exact phrase is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Seems to me 'exclusive rights' are exactly what the patent law is there to provide.
In my view
yeah... but... see... your opinion doesn't matter and is likely wildly inaccurate only because you don't know what you're talking about... you don't have the faintest idea of what jury misconduct is and I'm not sure why you think you do... because you have not studied law and passed the bar... because you only have a simplistic and pedestrian understanding of patents and the law. See... um... the judge? She went to law school, and has law experience. She was given authority by the United States Congress to do her job. She's no slouch. You, OTOH, not only have no understanding nor expertise in the matter, you also have no authority mandated by Congress.
I love it when businesses use taxpayer money to increase a CEO's profits at no benefit to the consumer or employees whatsoever.
Why do the US even have a jury in civil cases?
Worst troll ever.
Yeah... I know... the style of writing is pretty identifiable even if it isn't littered with bold headings and a thousand links. The troll is Already Proven Krazy and is best left ignored.
"Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."
Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
Apple's stock has been in free fall for the last couple of months.
They're down to $532 from a September peak of $705.
That's a 25% drop in stock valuation and has nothing to do with the trial.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Did Jeff Han's 2006 TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ inspire the patents? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20073461-264/apples-new-multitouch-patent-faq/ implies the TED talk was shown in court, but then ignored.
What a laughably stupid statement. The purpose of patents is most certainly NOT to allow others to create products, it is to encourage invention and the release of information.
The purpose is to ensure that inventions and works of art are shared, to improve all of society.
The exact phrase is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Seems to me 'exclusive rights' are exactly what the patent law is there to provide.
See how that starts? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That's the purpose, promoting progress. The second half, the half that you're focusing on, is how patents accomplish that purpose. By offering a limited time exclusive right. The problem is the limited time is currently 14 years for utility patents and 20 years for design patents. That's several generations of obsolescence in mobile tech. That doesn't promote progress. It promotes a stagnated market with no consumer choice whatsoever. We have an alternative form of intellectual property protection that lets the holder hoard it in private forever. It's called Trade Secret. It would be more in line with the stated purpose of patents to simply require all patent holders to license their patents under FRAND rules.
Hi, thanks for posting. I'm sure erroneus is as aware as anyone else that has ever read any of his posts that although he often speaks knowledgeably and condescendingly about subjects he has no knowledge of, he really never has any idea of what he's talking about. It's a good bet that he's a teenager, so please cut him some slack.
No, but being shorted on time is.
My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.
Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.
Let's pretend Samsung didn't have months to present that evidence - then they still had time enough to present that specific piece of evidence in time. Because it was the only device they made themselves.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Point taken. I didn't look back that far on the graph. I did also see links to stories talking about the value dropping below $500 for the first time in a long time or something like that. Perhaps a 25% drop *is* something to be concerned about. If I were a shareholder, I think I would be upset.
I know a lot, if not most posters here are very biased in favor of one company or the other. However in today's ruling, both companies were swinging for the fences, hoping to get lucky, and were rightfully slapped down:
Samsung attacking a juror despite having had ample knowledge and ability to discover potential bias, in order to get the whole thing thrown out and to roll the dice again.
Apple claiming irreparable harm in allowing the infringing devices, in order to get an import/sales ban. This is equally silly, as the features included are not exactly preventing Apple from selling its product, or similar extreme situation...
I am confused. How can 20 years be 'several generations of obsolescence' at the same time '[patents] promote a stagnated market'? How are these 'several generations' occurring when patents have so severely crippled innovation (if the standard slashdot line is to be believed)?
The fact is, progress is occurring at an incredibly fast rate, so clearly all these patents have not stopped progress.
See how that starts? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That's the purpose, promoting progress.
Ahh, so it should be allowing copying, because as we all know nothing says "progress" more clearly than everybody doing the exact same thing over and over again.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You don't get how this works, do you?
The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
Apple's stock has been in free fall for the last couple of months.
They're down to $532 from a September peak of $705.
That's a 25% drop in stock valuation and has nothing to do with the trial.
Yeah, but it's also a 35% rise over a year.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Even if Samsung loses the billion, as had been pointed out, they will make it back on raising prices to Apple, some of which they have already done.
However if a lot of the judgement goes away, as I suspect it will, Samsung will get to keep the extra billion. Looks to me like Samsung can't lose and Apple has royally shot itself in the arse.
Thanks to its winning strategy, Samsung is projected to again take the No. 1 spot in the smartphone market this year, after beating out Apple by just one percentage point of market share in 2011, according to IHS iSuppli. This year, Samsung will widen its lead, accounting for 28 percent of global smartphone shipments, compared to Apple's 20 percent. "Samsung made significant gains in both the high end as well as the low-cost market with its Galaxy line of smartphones," IHS iSuppli said. "This diversified market approach has allowed Samsung to address a larger target audience for its phones than Apple's limited premium iPhone line." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413347,00.asp
Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed
Oh? I hadn't heard about that. Which evidence was this?
Note: Before you even fucking mention emails, compare the dates from which Samsung's emails are available and from which Apple's emails are available.
IANAL, but I think if someone managed to sneak a biased person onto a Jury to influence the outcome that would probably be jury tampering, whatever it is classed as I'm sure it would be illegal and lead to a retrial.
Rather than a loophole, it is more like a lottery, where if a biased person gets past jury selection and onto the jury nothing can be done if their biases lead them to make the wrong decision.
I am confused. How can 20 years be 'several generations of obsolescence' at the same time '[patents] promote a stagnated market'? How are these 'several generations' occurring when patents have so severely crippled innovation (if the standard slashdot line is to be believed)?
Got an idea for a new and fashionable product? Go try and develop it and put it out on the market. Then just wait. Soon enough, your confusion will be abated.
It's the case in many countries, including the UK. The jury making a mistake is not grounds for an appeal or retrial unless some rule was broken. If you get a bunch of idiots who are easily lead by one member of the group then bad luck.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How do you sneak a biased juror past the process? Either side can ask questions of potential jurors, and answering them falsely is perjury. Perjury is very likely a valid reason for a retrial, and the judge apparently didn't find that it happened. Either side can ask that a juror be removed for cause. I don't know how it is everywhere, but in my limited experience as a candidate juror each side could, at the end, name two jurors they just didn't want.
In other words, Samsung's lawyers have nobody to blame but themselves for letting this guy on the jury. What he'd already said should have been a flag that he might be biased, and it's Samsung's lawyers' job to find out.
If either party here qualified as a "little guy", I'd have a lot of sympathy for the one who couldn't afford to lawyer up properly. However, we're talking about two huge corporations, who have the money to hire excellent lawyers, and who should know how to handle lawsuits.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As has been discussed pretty thoroughly at Groklaw, there are ways to overturn a jury verdict. One of the ways is to prove juror misconduct. The question at hand is whether the jury foreman is/was guilty of that or not. When you take all of the evidence into account (including, btw, that there was no such thing as a 10 year limit during the jury selection), I think it's pretty clear that this juror had an axe to grind and failed in his duty.
Don't believe me? How about the official record?
What does that have to do with my post? And why doesn't PC Mag tell what is setting apart Samsung from other Android manufacturers that make it sell more than all others combined? Hint: the verdict gives the answer.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
No, but being shorted on time is.
My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.
Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.
Let's pretend Samsung didn't have months to present that evidence - then they still had time enough to present that specific piece of evidence in time. Because it was the only device they made themselves.
Looks like a mod can't handle facts.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
If nobody can develop their improvements to your invention because you're just hoarding your patents, that's a stagnated market. Mobile devices have lots and lots of different technologies in them. HTC had to remove the features in their web browser because of a patent on touching a phone number opening a dialer. So in 14 years (utility patent) can restore that feature. At the rate of current development in other areas like real time natural language speech processing, feature-rich touch input processing will be taken for granted like a scrolling with a mouse. So the longevity of that one patent is going to stagnate touch-screen browser development on mobile devices.
Most patents are incremental improvements to existing inventions[1][2][3]. But the patent-holder has to license the original patent for you to build your idea on top of it. [1] http://inventors.about.com/od/inventing101patents/f/can_be_patented.htm [2] http://www.fr.com/Patent-Math--Making-Sure-Your-Strategies-Add-Up-05-31-2010/ [3] http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html
Also this
And what question should one ask during Voir Dire to determine whether Velvin Hogan would act as an expert witness during deliberations, telling jurors (falsely) that if prior art doesn't run on the same processor it can't be prior art?
Hogan screwed the pooch during deliberations and consequently the verdict is a farce.
:(){
Better than attempting blackmail of others pussy http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 and libeling them right before that only to have your lies thrown back into your pussy face.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928
erroneus/john b wilcox you're one ugly fat fuck http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 lose weight ya pig. Layoff the pizza!