Slashdot Mirror
Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video
itwbennett (1594911) writes "U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh on Sunday overruled Samsung Electronics' objections to showing jurors a recent instructional video on how patents work, ahead of a trial in a patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The new video, called 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' was developed by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system. Samsung's objection is to several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used (and, by extension, seen as patentable and innovative)."
Apple products in a patent instructional video? In a case involving Samsung? Steve Jobs is smiling somewhere. (As to where he is smiling from, I'll leave up to your imagination.)
How can an "instructional video" showing one of the parties as an example not present a bias?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Un. Fu. King. Believable.
Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:
Samsung’s objection to Apple’s proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, “The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,” and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders.
The article apparently originally appeared on Recode.net so better to use primary source (which has the ruling and both videos.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Why did a second instructional video have to be made?
That sounds like a reasonable objection to showing the video. The article doesn't mention why the judge overruled that objection. I'd be interested to know. With a very large amount of money on the line, would it really be too much trouble and expense to create a less biased version of the video?
The video coincidentally happens to feature Apple. Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple.
You obviously don't understand. The past behavior of the judge is not what is at issue
here.
The video will be seen by any competent attorney who works for Samsung as a means by
which the jurors could be influenced to reach a conclusion which is favorable to one of the two
litigating parties. As such, all the time and money which is being spent on these proceedings will
be wasted.
It is comical that the judge is so stupid. I wonder if she got her position because she is a female
and a member of a minority. Because she certainly did not get her position by being competent.
.
Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple.
Now it does...
I'm seriously tired of this crap. I no longer care who wins or loses in any of this. The patent system is simply being abused in every which way. Software patents have got to go as do design patents as petty as rounded corners. This idiocy has got to end at some point. I honestly expected it to come to a head before now. This is like walking in mud from New York to California.
She is supporting Apple, an American company based in Northern California, just like an American judge in Northern California should.
The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires). Copying with greater efficiency benefits the consumer. You seem to imply that copying is bad, in and of itself. Do you only use Bayer aspirin? Do you avoid iPhones and iPads because they don't use Intel microprocessors?
Getting a patent is supposed to require coming up with something new and non-obvious - something many of Apple's patent claims lack. (e.g. pinch/spread to compress/zoom).
There's also the issue of Apple's apparent copying of a Samsung design when they created the iPad, which they disingenuously tried to claim in reverse.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Well this is a court house only a few miles from Apple's HQ, go figure.
I'm not convinced someone who doesn't know what a patent is BEFORE being selected is
the best person to decide a case like this. Why can't we have scientists in the jury when
it's scientific, medical professionals when it's medical in nature, computer experts when
it is computer related, etc... I think it's unrealistic to pick someone who doesn't know what
a patent/modem/etc.. is and expect them to make an accurate decision when they don't
understand the technology or process involved.
I think this was posted after 0:00 UMT
The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires).
"His name was James Damore."
On the other hand, there is already another edition of the video that neither party objects to. Surely just to avoid even the perception of impropriety that version could have been used.
Do you think Apple would have an issue if Samsung hired the same actors and reshot only the scenes that used apple hardware and used Samsung hardware instead?
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
I know I'm going to look foolish for saying this, but I actually watched part of the video (enough to know how apple products are portrayed)! The apple product in the video is being used to file for a patent. There is _nothing_ in the video about patents owned by apple, or patents involving apple products. The suggestion by Samsung that the video biases jurors is absurd.
Yes, just like the Pepsi Cola in the action movie is merely being used by the badass hero to quench his thirst, and certainly no claim is being made that it is superior to Coca-Cola or any niche brand of soft drink.
Yet Pepsi Cola paid a lot of money to make that happen.
Why should Apple get this treatment for free with government support? When it would be so easy to create a video with none of these questions? That's the take-away here.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.
(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)
Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible? that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs, that's because Apple paid them. If you see a product logo, money changed hands. Otherwise it'll be something generic, or the logo will be removed, or what not. They don't give freebies on that sort of things because they can, and do, make a lot of money on it.
Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.
So why does Apple do this? Because they want to create the image in people's minds that apple are what all the cool, good looking, people (who actors in shows invariably are) use. It is an image thing with the brand. They want people to see it all the time, used by the hero characters. That leads people to form the opinion that they might want to own one.
They wouldn't spend the money doing it if they didn't believe it was effective.
Apple is seriously doing this, in a court of law? I wonder if they pass around Apple brand cab glasses to the jury so they can smell their own farts too.
FYI.
I recall slide to unlock on the Medtronic N'Vision 8840 circa 2002.
Maybe you can get *that* bogus patent thrown out?
Personally I avoid them because they don't use TI microprocessors, since TI was two months earlier than Intel in developing a microprocessor, and theirs was a true single chip microprocessor, while Intel's was only part of a bigger solution. There's also the microcontroller/DSP combo that went into the F14 Tomcat two years earlier, but was classified until 1997, and unknown to both Intel and TI, and then the Gilbert Hyatt invention, which despite having its patent overturned by Intel's pack of lawyers undoubtably pre-dated Intel's invention even if he failed to commercialize the design.
All this really shows is that once technology is ready for an invention, multiple people will naturally come up with the idea around the same time, so the whole concept of patents could do with a rethink to allow for this parallel discovery while at the same time protecting against blatent copying.
*NM*
I was going to suggest using a wheel as an example, but Apple claims that invention for the iPod dial.
Table-ized A.I.
Apple does not do product placement. Hollywood often uses Apple products, and sometimes even asks Apple for payment. Apple refuses, which is why you often see them with Apple logos covered with stickers, etc.
In the previous case, Apple asked, and was awarded by the same judge, covering the Samsung logo on the TVs used to display evidence to the Jurors. The claim then was that the court use of Samsung products might be seen as an endorsement of the company. This is, substantially, the same claim now used by Samsung.
I have not seen the whole video. The parts I did see did not show the Apple logo prominently. If that is the case throughout, I think this decision is reasonable. This, assuming none of the products used are the same as the products around which this case revolves. I believe this is the case (I did not see an Apple logo in my skimming, and the products are macbooks, while this case is about phones).
If, however, the Apple logo was on screen, or the products do have an overlap, then I think that decision, particularly by that judge, is hypocritical and wrong.
Shachar
Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.
Well, first of all, MS and Dell both have major presences in a lot of movies and TV, big and small, from Marvel through the new Tomorrow People. Second Apple logos are often blocked out *because* they didn't license, they just used the product because it was aesthetically pleasing. Third there are whole movies devoted to basically being car company product placement. The Need for Speed movie was basically a dressed up Ford ad.
But lastly, Coke is easily the most placed product. It's everywhere
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
100 years of fucking beta .com forever fuck beta rick and beta forever for all time
Maybe you didn't realize Apple did it, but they did it. Look further down this thread for one example. Hollywood is greedy and they know they can get money for product placement. So they charge for it. If nobody pays, they remove logos or make generic coverings. Sometimes it is even as simply as just putting tape over the logo (you'll see that on Mythbusters). They aren't going to hand out freebies. It isn't always money directly, sometimes it is discounts (or free) products, but Hollywood gets something for that logo being shown. For consumer electronics, often it is free devices for directors, producers and so on.
Maybe your boss told you that to help reinforce the Apple RDF that everyone love Apple for all things or whatever, but it is blatantly untrue and it doesn't take much research to discover that.
In case you don't remember from the Groklaw coverage, she's been quite badly biased from the start. She could have avoided prejudice with a very simple decision, but chose not to and then didn't even bother explaining herself, which is an extremely clear indication that she had no good reason for this.
Pinch to zoom in 1988. Apple's patented version is one of those ridiculous "on a" patents, where you take (steal) a pre-existing idea, and tack the words "on a [something]" to the end of it. In their case, "pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen." The USPTO overturned the patent last year.
"Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple."
You mean other than the fact she acted as a lawyer for Apple under the law firm she used to work for?
No, nothing indicates bias whatsoever.
So, citation please? Because I've tried REALLY hard to find actual documentation that she did more than work for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, who have represented huge swaths of companies, including quite a few household names like Google. Nothing specifically showing she worked for Apple. Proof or shut the fuck up.
Whisky tango foxtrot?
I could understand it if the judge decided to show something she'd TiVOd of Discovery Channel the week before but this sounds as if it was made for this specific purpose.
What possible combination of misconceptions would lead the 'Federal Judicial Center' (the name suggests they might have the odd law degree to share between them) to feature any recognizable commercial products in an instructional video specifically made to instruct jurors in cases inevitably involving competing businesses?
Surely, any moron commissioning such a video would have 'Don't show any brands or recognizable products' on page 1 of the brief? With a footnote saying 'even if its arguably not in the context of patentability - we don't want to create excuses for objections or appeals when all those fellow lawyers are getting paid by the hou...
Oh, wait.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
It's at about 4:30 in the video.
Look at Better Off Ted. There they use Macs, presumably for aesthetic reasons, but Apple didn't give them any money or products. So there's no logos. Where the Apple logo is, instead a big sticker of a different, generic, logo has been placed.
The judge once again gives Samsung another avenue for appeal. If anything, Apple should also be asking not to use the video to avoid that outcome.
Why should Apple get this treatment for free with government support? When it would be so easy to create a video with none of these questions? That's the take-away here.
Because they have to use SOME product to show that. When the video was made, they used an Apple one. Now, that video happens to be involved in a lawsuit that involves Apple. What if they used a Samsung product? That video would have the same problem. So they use a Google Chrome book... oh wait, Googles in on it too now. How about a kindle?
Oh, except if Amazon get involved in a patent case where the video is shown, you're back to square one. Samsung needs to put on it's big boy pants, and get over it.
Apple owns the patent for not showing an apple logo in instructional videos, thus in order to not violate the patent and get sued they MUST use an apple logo in their instructional video. It's simple really...
Aplolgies if this was already mentioned: but why not just put the video in Premiere and black out the 5-seconds or whatever with apple products?
Perhaps we not have as many cases go to court then? Thanks
Don't get too excited, Hi-Res versions are not free- but a whopping $50.00. Hey, It was a library, but I should have known better than to elevate my hopes...
I was showing a situation where Apple products were used, but Apple wasn't paying for product placement, so the logos were covered. 30 Rock is then an example of where they did pay, and the logos are visible.
Yeah. I don't see any difference between this objection, which the judge overruled, and Apple's objection in the previous trial, which the same judge accepted.
IANAL, but it seems the judge provided little enough explanation.
Shachar
If you paid extra....the streaks could come in other colors.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
All the cards are being stacked against Samsung. First it is all about rectangles with rounded corners. Which describes pretty much every cell phone in existence, yet only Samsung was sued. My first cell phone (analog) was a brick sized rectangle ... with rounded corners, back in the mid '80s long before Apple even thought about cell phones.
Next they got a highly dishonest jury foreman who lied during voir dire (and somehow this became "OK") about previous legal troubles involving patents and a business partner of Samsung. Then basically tells the rest of the jury that there is no such thing as prior art.
Next the Obama whitehouse blocks an import ban against Apple based solely on the fact Apple supplied more campaign contributions in the previous year than Samsung did.
Now there is a "new" jury video on patents that specifically shows Apple products as being oh so cool and innovative and the judge sees no problems with this.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is not possible for Samsung to get a fair trial in the US.
Did anybody forget what day is today?
See you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... you bigmouthed little nobody...
APK
P.S.=> Have the balls to show up there in the link above to reply to it (& NOT days later like you did, LONG after I left that thread!)
NOW, in the link above, I simply tore you apart in it vs. your "so-called 'points'" that you "amended" bogusly, changing your parameters/constraints there!
(& I am going to rip you a new asshole there YET AGAIN, publicly, for your BIG mouth you little shit - prepare to be utterly humiliated, publicly...)
... apk