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)
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.
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
Why did a second instructional video have to be made?
Because the first one, "Fucking patents - how do they work?" was thought to be in contempt.
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 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.
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.
I was going to suggest using a wheel as an example, but Apple claims that invention for the iPod dial.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.
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...