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)."
I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).
I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Look at 4:43. It is a perfect example of how I would design intentional bias.
Its a freeze frame with the apple logo and the text slowly imposed. "New, Useful, not obvious to one skilled in the field.".
The text frames the apple logo making part of the natural scan of the eyes. The word "one" hangs above the logo.
The Apple logo is the brightest item in image and placed at rule-of-thirds-intersection. No other image detail competes with the logo i.e. no human eyes, no coffee logo, no bag logo, no logo in the t-shirt, no logos in the background etc. Its form is clear despite the filter blurring out other features of the image.
Before and after the freeze-frame, the logo is shown and the direction of the inventor's gaze is always towards the apple logo.
A disgraceful infommercial.