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. The fact is, the slavish copying of other people's products is Samsung's business model. Refrigerators, televisions, phones, any appliance that can be replicated will be.
But then most judges are when they deal with technology.
Much worse than this, Apple is choosing to litigate rather than innovate.
If Apple did a better job with its products they wouldn't need to worry
about Samsung. I'm an Apple user and I have been disgusted with the
recent versions of OS X and iOS. The stuff is just awful compared to
earlier versions. I don't know what Tim Cook or any of the rest of the
honchos are doing at Apple, but making sure the product is actually
good is clearly not among their top priorities.
.
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.
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
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.
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?
*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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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