Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video

Posted by Unknown on from the sure-patenting-boxes-is-legal dept.

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)."

15 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Blatant conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Blatant conflict of interest by SumDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was a Buddhists. So he's smiling from his position as a factory line worker in an iPhone plant.

  2. Bad law... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Bad law... by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like the way you single out North Americans, as if they indeed are somehow more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians. Time for a reality check, dude.

    2. Re:Bad law... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only as "an" example, the video featured an Apple II (I think), an Apple MacBook Pro, an Apple iPad, and then an Apple iPhone all in succession during a discussion about how patents lead to inventions which change society. I mean... really?

    3. Re:Bad law... by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents, in the process of a trial having specifically to do with a patent dispute involving Apple products. Are you really this ignorant of how the (average) human mind actually works and processes stimuli, to think that such portrayal of any same-branded products could not possibly have an adverse effect on how people judge the matter at hand? Samsung's objection is very relevant. Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.

    4. Re:Bad law... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't be silly, everyone knows that apple invented the computer, the Internet, the MP3 player, the smartphone, the smart watch and that Steve Jobs figured out how to solve climate change and buried the secret deep within iTunes, if only we could get the damned program to run properly so we could save the world.

    5. Re:Bad law... by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    6. Re:Bad law... by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only Americans... just check your neighborhood... or in the mirror.

      I was with you until "in the mirror". The fact is, most people in most places are not this corrupt. Most people are subject to a minority who happen to "run things".

      As a matter of fact, this is part of the problem: the average person working a job and raising a family cannot comprehend the greed, the self-interested several-moves-ahead strategy that looks like things "just worked out that way", the corruption, the ruthlessness, and the dehumanization. If the average person fully understood these forces, then you would in fact have a situation where public awareness keeps these abuses in check.

      Adolph Hitler himself described the phenomenon with surprising candor. He said: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

      Because they themselves do not use this level of deceit, it does not occur to them that others do. Therefore there is a certain innocence or naivete that prevents the average person from suspecting and guarding against such things.

      A gaze into this mirror for most would reflect not such corruption, but a kind of innocence that ideally would know better. History is replete with examples, but of course that only happens elsewhere. It can't happen here. It certainly cannot happen in a manner that is subtle, not publicised, not obvious, not easily detectable. Or so the thinking goes.

      The truth is, the corrupt are competing not with a vigilant and wise public, but against other sociopaths. Other sociopaths deal with this not by exposing all corruption, for that would harm themselves, but by carving out their own little niche that doesn't encroach upon the terriority of their competitors more than necessary. The average person has no clue how much they're being lied to on a daily basis by governments, corporations, and other institutions which enjoy an automatic credibility they have not earned.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Bad law... by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

      But, the chances of grouping 12 imbeciles from a random selection is very improbable.

      In this country?

    8. Re:Bad law... by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.

      This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.

      The problem is that we have two standards. One is the level of objectivity and reasonable thinking you should be able to expect of adult people. The second is the actual thinking you really get from adult people.

      According to the first, it's truly a tempest in a teapot. According to the second, the cost of producing a video that would put to rest entirely such objections is negligable compared to the cost of the rest of the trial.

      Branding, logos, and emotional situations associated with them are used in marketing for the precise reason that they bypass the former standard and appeal to the second. All major corporations engage in this. Apple is not in any way special and neither is Samsung. They do it because on the vast majority of soft-minded and easily influenced people, they work. Just consider, why would beer commercials show vibrant parties and bikini babes instead of telling you about how the beer was brewed and why it's better? Why do car commercials show families and small children to tug at your heartstrings instead of explaining why their engineering principles are sound? They want the second standard to prevail; it is much more malleable and easier to manipulate by far.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Bad law... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you should watch it again. Forward the video to 2:54, where it narrates the following quotation:

      During the lifetime of the patent, its disclosure may inspire other inventions.

      As the quote is read, it shows an Appe II, then a Macbook. Immediately afterwards, it shows an iPad and an iPhone.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    10. Re:Bad law... by Zukix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Why??? by JakartaDean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  4. Re:Why? by gargleblast · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.