Slashdot Mirror
Wi-Fi Problems Dog Apple-Samsung Trial
alphadogg (971356) writes "There's a new sign on the door to Courtroom 5 at the federal courthouse in San Jose, the home to the Apple v. Samsung battle that's playing out this month: 'Please turn off all cell phones.' For a trial that centers on smartphones and the technology they use, it's more than a little ironic. The entire case might not even be taking place if the market wasn't so big and important, but the constant need for connectivity of everyone is causing problems in the court, hence the new sign. The problems have centered on the system that displays the court reporter's real-time transcription onto monitors on the desks of Judge Lucy Koh, the presiding judge in the case, and the lawyers of Apple and Samsung. The system, it seems, is connected via Wi-Fi and that connection keeps failing."
That, uhm, isn't the definition of irony.
Plug it in?
The system, it seems, is connected via Wi-Fi and that connection keeps failing.
So I suppose if that DOESN'T fix it, they'll remove the sign and allow active cellphones again? (Hmm, I thought metal objects mostly wouldn't be allowed in the building. Is that only Federal stuff?) That being said, I could certainly understand a judge not wanting to hear ringtones in their active courtroom.
:-) )
I listen to shows with captioning turned on for almost everything. I presume having this is the courtroom allows the judge to easily review testimony earlier in the trial? (Or are they listening to music on earbuds and only start to pay attention when the transcriptionist STARTS WRITING IN UPPER CASE?
Lastly, bring in a laptop and sit in the audience, and intercept or change the written record. "I didn't do it!" becomes "What's your problem, you slutty judge?" Or then again there's this guy...
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Wouldn't be the first time Apple products cause WIFI issues. It's all part of the larger Apple strategy to sell Airport series WAP's.
Maybe I just don't understand what is really happening here, but shouldn't the wi-fi network for official court usage be secured so only those terminals are able to connect. The cell phones and stuff shouldn't be causing an issue, unless a bunch of people are trying to operate ad-hoc networks to do tethering with cellular data service.
"problem dog"
I have a pair of wireless gaming headphones that use the same 2.4Ghz band as Wifi but not the same protocol. Some people have interference problems and have to change the channel for their AP.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
MOD PARENT UP!!!
This is the solution. If you want a reliable connection, used wired Internet.
This system should have never been designed to be used over a wireless network.
Sig: I stole this sig.
If I want a reliable connection in my house, I hard-wire. It is the only way I can control the physical layer of the network. Once I go wireless, I cede control of the physical layer to forces unknown.
They should be using Bluetooth!
The reason they don't do this is because many court reports like to be within a certain distance of whomever is talking and many are surprising particular. For example, there is one in my local district that insists on being exactly four feet away and at a forty-five degree angle to whomever is speaking. Additionally, sometimes the real-time transcription programs take two people to operate: one to type in the words phonetically and one to change it to actual English if the computer's algorithm is a miss, which can be common in cases with highly technical words. Finally, there is probably multiple court reporters taking turns because it is very tiring to do for long periods of time because of the concentration required and each reporter would have their own stenotype.
Judge just says, "First to permanently fix it for us wins the case."
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
If Apple and Samsung are going to dance this much they should build their own hall. And while they're at it Apple should ask Google to dance because that is what she really wants.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Hate to tell you this but by your definition Samsung is not leading anything, as they are just doing things other companies (not even Apple) did long ago.
Everyone is iterating on older ideas, Samsung just likes to use Apple's iterations as a base and sometimes screws it up (see: fingerprint sensor). The documents from the trial prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt; Samsung looks at how Apple does something in great detail, then thinks of a few alternatives, then says "screw it, just do what Apple did".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do they need real time transcription screens? Courts have operated for thousands of years without such devices just fine. They can always view the transcription later.
Maybe the judge has her preferences set to Plain Text ;)
The obvious solution is to use a non-wifi wireless networking technology, of which there are several. The traffic is extremely low-bandwidth, so there's no reason why this shouldn't work. XBee, for example, which is available in non-2.4GHz flavors.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This just illustrates something I've tried to get across to the techie elite. There's a host of situations where wireless doesn't work, primarily because the density of users is too great. Apple PR events illustrate that all too well, as does a 'hot' trial. Too many people trying to use WiFi or 3G becomes a disaster.
There may also be situations where signals from multiple nearby electronics systems mix and create all sorts of bizarre, unpredictable interference. As a federal building that court may have communications systems on the roof that create that. For more, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation
The solution is to recognize that wireless can't always replace wired. I've tried in the past to get Apple to create an Ethernet equivalent if MagSafe and release it to the world to no available. But that's precisely what courtrooms, public events, hospitals, banking etc. need--a quick-to-connect wired version of Ethernet, one that's so easy and safe to connect that its only a little more trouble than going wireless.
Transcription screens are a justification of the financial waste in the system. You'd think with all these smartphones, they'd be able to get updates outside the courtroom. And presumably a lot cheaper, too.
They need it so that lawyers can ask follow up questions in real time, without having to have the reporter read something back and break up their flow. Also, some lawyers may be hard of hearing.
Remember too that it is the parties paying for all this stuff - including the court reporter. The judge gets a free copy, but all the tech is split by the parties. I know as I used to work in a courtroom and now work in a law firm. At least in New York, it is very possible to set up a wired connection, including to and from the court reporter's machine, to avoid all the interference and lag issues that come up with Wifi.
when I saw the word dog I thought of the four-legged animal, Canis lupus familiaris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
Yep I've got a blue wire under by desk, but she believes in wi-fi and just seeks my help and advice every time she looses connection, such is life.
Go well
For a trial that centers on smartphones and the technology they use
The trial isn't about cellphones. It's about the US legal profession shoving unethical practices down everyone else's throat.
The legal (and governmental) ethics problems with the current patent system are well established. The logic that shows the ethics problems exist is comprehensible to any intelligent high school student. Until the ethics problems are dealt with, the entire system is invalid.
The US legal profession is showing the same stubbornness with respect to this issue that they showed with respect to ending slavery, or ending the "separate but not actually equal system". Just as with the patent system, everyone with a functioning brain was able to figure out these things were wrong, but the legal profession didn't want want to do the right thing.
It took decades to get them to acknowledge that the things they were doing were wrong before, how long will it take this time?
As long is somebody with lots of money is willing to pay them, it appears the majority of US legal professionals have no concern with right or wrong, ethics, or integrity.