Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
That could work, though having a patent as prior art might make it easy enough top find that even a patent clerk can.
FUD. That wasn't a patent as we understand them. Australia implemented a registration-only system a few years back. There's no examination and no presumption of validity or novelty. All you get is a filing date.
...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
Sorry - replied on my iPad.
Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious thing but really it's ancient history.
Agreed... But that simply implies that Samsung reasonably had no idea, and Apple reasonably had even less idea... which means that any misconduct by the jury is solely the jury's issue and not either of theirs.
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records.
If Hogan had been a jury member in a suit, or an expert, or talkie, I could see the reference being in he law firm's records rather than Seagate's, but a past plaintiff against them?
More to the point, I'm saying it's more likely that Samsung had knowledge of Hogan (although they may have lost the records/not looked) than that Apple knew about him.
Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that.
However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
Except that you're being contradictory... On the one hand, you're saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous and records from that far back are irrelevant, if not lost, and on the other hand, you're saying that the business relationship is so intricate and involved that anyone with a problem with Seagate must be biased against Samsung.
Did Hogan know that Samsung bought Seagate? That's a huge assumption you're making.
Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.
It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness
There aren't any "basic common sense tests" of invention, prior art, and obviousness, just as there isn't a "basic common sense test" for whether an accused murderer is guilty. They're legal decisions, subject to the requirements of due process, and must be supported by evidence. Just as you can't say, "I have a gut feeling that he looks guilty, so let's send him away for life," you can't say "I have a gut feeling that this patent is obvious, so let's make it invalid." You need sufficient evidence that proves guilt (such as DNA evidence, witness accounts, etc.) or that proves obviousness (such as one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, teach or suggest everything in the patent).
And incidentally, "prior art" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prior art" is anything in the art (industry) that is prior. So, for example, the Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for Google Glass. The term you're thinking of is "anticipatory prior art" - where one piece of prior art discloses, explicitly or inherently, everything in the patent claim. So, if a patent shows A+B+C+D+E, you show that the patent is invalid because it is anticipated by finding one piece of prior art that shows A+B+C+D+E. You show that the patent is invalid because it obvious by finding one piece of art that shows A+B and another that shows C+E and another that shows D.
Note: this is a description of the law as it currently exists, not as you might wish it to be, so don't get upset with me because I'm telling you that showing obviousness requires evidence
Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get.
They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this.
Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
... except that Samsung, being in such a close relationship to Seagate, had access to Seagate's records and would have been easier able to find the conflict. I mean, you probably have no idea if I've ever been sued and by whom, but if someone sued your spouse, you'd probably know about it. If you and I got into a lawsuit and that person was on the jury, you'd probably notice them long before I ever would, just as I'd probably notice the other jury person who sued me long before you would.
The question this raises is not whether Apple knew, but whether Samsung knew about Hogan and sat on that information to use in case of a bad jury verdict.
It's not a patent as we'd think of them, but just a registration that says "you filed these papers on this date". They're never examined and have no presumption of patentability. Unlike examination systems, it actually really is a literal rubber stamp.
Maybe Slashdot should stop accepting submission from anonymous readers, so at least if submitters troll in the summary we at least know who they are. Or perhaps, I don't know, the editors could actually edit the submissions so they're not blatantly trolling.
No, because Apple want to completely ban the Samsung devices and claims that money can't make up for the harm that Samsung's devices are causing. However, if Apple licensed their patents to HTC, then clearly money can make up for the harm and thus, Apple is only entitled to money damages, not a complete ban (if Samsung's devices are found to be infringing).
Except that it's highly unlikely that the licensed patents include the design patents at issue in this case. Design patents are more like trade dress, in that a lot of their value relies on them being distinctive. Apple can respond that if only the utility patents were infringed, then monetary damages may have been adequate, but that no such damages would be adequate for infringement of the design patents.
4 days ago when Samsung did the same thing, it was "Korean electronics giant Samsung has added three new Apple products to the list of products that the company claims infringes on its patents." But when it's the other side, suddenly, it's "Apple throws a tantrum"? Both articles were yours... Bit of a bias there, Samsungzenpus?
Every shredder I've seen for the last decade has been a crosscut shredder instead of the old style.
The shredded paper strips look like what comes out of the low-end Champion shredder I bought at Office Depot last year. Including the slightly serrated edges. That thing just cuts paper into 8mm strips. As a security device, it's not much.
Given the "artistic" layout of the strips in that photo, I'd guess that that was some Newsday photographer's idea of a dramatic reenactment, rather than an actual handful of the strips in question.
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and this is a different country we are talking about. But I was under the impression that you have to actually sue the opposing party in civil court _first_. Then warrant may be given to perform discovery of whatever judge allows you to discover
Otherwise where exactly would this evidence go to? Some evidence is sent directly to the judge (and there is no judge).
It would be pretty hilarious if the police can just take the girl's laptop directly to the (civilly) suing party. Do they (CIAPC) have to give the laptop back? How long do they have to preform discovery? Does police perform their own forensic analysis during a civil lawsuit?
There's a third option, available in most countries, referred to as an Anton Piller order (from the original case it came up in). You can sue someone, but before serving papers on them (so they don't know they're being sued), you can go to the judge and request a seizure order. Then, you show up at their place with the cops, serve the complaint and seizure order, and take the seized equipment back to the judge. They're typically used in situations where it's highly likely that the defendant will destroy evidence if they find out they're being sued - copyright and trademark infringement cases, mainly.
In most jurisdictions, the plaintiff also has to put up a large monetary bond for the seized equipment, which is given to the defendant if the case fails (so that you can't just destroy someone's business by filing a frivolous suit, seizing all of their equipment, drawing the case out for a long time, and then losing).
That's not true. Or rather, it's true in the exact same way that there are no software patents in the US. Under In re Bilski, software alone is unpatentable, but if you recite a method that's tied to a machine, then it's patent eligible subject matter. EU law is identical - software alone is unpatentable, but a method that's tied to a machine is patent eligible. For example, EP2095366 is a patent recently granted to IBM corresponding to US Patent 7760821. Both are directed to a method that's implemented in software, but both are patent eligible by virtue of being tied to a machine.
What I did not expect is that he actually has an educational and career background in technology.
It would be more unusual if he didn't have one... To be a patent attorney, you have to have a scientific or technical background - it's a requirement for eligibility to take the patent bar. Many of us have PhDs or years of engineering experience. If Kappos didn't have one, then he'd be a non-patent attorney in charge of the PTO, which would probably piss off the patent bar and examining corps more than anything else.
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.
There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.
Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.
On the contrary, while your analysis is correct with regard to copyright (few owners with $$$ to lobby congress vs. population at large with little political pressure), it's incorrect with regard to patents. With copyright, the copyright owners have a strong interest in protecting (and extending) their rights on their own works - hence the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for ever longer terms. They don't care about seizing each other's works, however... Disney has more interest in making Cars 4: The Search for more Oil than they do in making Scream 8. Sony Records has its own artists and doesn't need to copy BMG's stuff. They all care about piracy however, so they're united in - and able to throw all of their money to - extending copyright.
This doesn't apply to patents... Apple may want to extend its own patent rights, but they have just as much interest, if not more, in having IBM and Microsoft and Samsung and HP's patents fall into the public domain. Same for all of the others. So, it's not [few owners] vs. [public], but [owner] vs. [owner] vs. [owner], etc. As a result, there's no unified push to extend patent terms, and there never has been.
There's a slight tweak to this, which is pharma - there, there's a huge push by pharma companies to extend patent term... But there's also a huge push by generic manufacturers to shrink patent term. The money comes out pretty equally, so neither can effectively lobby congress for an increase.
In summary, while you're right regarding the pressures for extending copyright term, this analysis simply doesn't apply to patents, where the rights owners are not unified with a common interest.
So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
If Form 1 currently infringes, such that they would have to tweak their software to not infringe, then 3D Systems did nothing wrong in filing their lawsuit. A countersuit on such grounds would be frivolous and unjustified, and only get them into more trouble.
since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't
"I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?
If he were, yes, but if you check the quote marks carefully, you find that quote to be from Submitter, not from the Committee Director.
If you bothered following my links, you'd find that they actually contain citations to many, many legal precedents.
As for your citation, first, it's dicta - you'd do better following the citation to the Boylan case.
Second, as your citation notes the previous paragraph, the "aggressive" investigation they're referring to is direct questioning. Lawyers may not directly question jurors, nor, in fact, may they communicate with them. However, they are certainly allowed to, for example, search state records to determine if there was a suit filed with one of the jurors as a party. They are also allowed to search other publicly available information, including jurors' websites, Facebook pages, etc., provided they do not contact the juror to obtain access.
So, no, doing research on a juror to find out if he has previously filed suit against a subsidiary of one of the parties is not illegal at all, as you'd know if you read either of my links.
You couldn't trademark a word of the English language, in and of itself - it would't hold up in US courts. You trademark a logo, an artistically stylized version of the word. The mere word itself is off limits to IP hucksters. Then again, I guess I doubt anyone else could come up with a new game and call it, "Monopoly" (how fitting) or "Sorry", or "Uno", or whatever.. so.. I dunno.. well, IANAL after all.
As another person pointed out, it's a German company and they don't have a US trademark, but trademarks in Europe where English isn't the first language. "Memory" is a generic term for memory here, but just like "das Gedächtnis" isn't generic in the US, "Memory" isn't generic in Germany.
Couldn't a Dictionary making company claim Prior Art?
Sure, but since a trademark doesn't have to be new, that dictionary making company wouldn't be much help. You're thinking patents. Trademarks only need to be distinctive of a manufacturer.
Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.
Not at all... If Apple doesn't think Hogan is biased, then they had no duty to mention the suit. Furthermore, Apple has no duty to presume that Samsung would find him biased and mention it. That's Samsung's job, and if Apple were making assumptions for them, we'd be rightly outraged. Apple can only act in their own name, and if they didn't think his Seagate suit biased him, then they had no reason to raise it.
1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.
But, contrary to what an AC said above, Samsung was certainly entitled to research the juror, and certainly due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit.
The bigger question here was whether Samsung did that research, and whether they knew about the Seagate suit pre-trial. If they did, and they sat on that information in case of a losing verdict, then they may have waived any opportunity to bring it up now... unlike the movies, you don't get to keep cards up your sleeves in litigation.
3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.
Only if Apple actually thought it was bias. If they looked at it and reasonably said "meh, he doesn't seem biased," then they have no obligation to bring it up (if they were engaging in willful blindness, that's different).
it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange...
Not strange at all... Apple isn't claiming Hogan is biased, so they have no need to provide evidence of when they had knowledge about his past activities, since that knowledge is irrelevant, as far as their claims are concerned. On the contrary, Samsung is claiming Hogan is biased, and if they knew about his past activities before trial and waited to play it as a card if they lost, then that may mean that they've waived the opportunity to bring it up now.
Or, to put it another way - if (A) either party knew about Hogan's past lawsuit before trial, then (B) that party can't claim he's biased because of it. If the party isn't claiming that (!B), then it's irrelevant whether they knew (A or !A).
Slashdot Mirror
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
That could work, though having a patent as prior art might make it easy enough top find that even a patent clerk can.
FUD. That wasn't a patent as we understand them. Australia implemented a registration-only system a few years back. There's no examination and no presumption of validity or novelty. All you get is a filing date.
...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
Sorry - replied on my iPad.
Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious thing but really it's ancient history.
Agreed... But that simply implies that Samsung reasonably had no idea, and Apple reasonably had even less idea... which means that any misconduct by the jury is solely the jury's issue and not either of theirs.
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records. If Hogan had been a jury member in a suit, or an expert, or talkie, I could see the reference being in he law firm's records rather than Seagate's, but a past plaintiff against them?
More to the point, I'm saying it's more likely that Samsung had knowledge of Hogan (although they may have lost the records/not looked) than that Apple knew about him.
Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that. However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
Except that you're being contradictory... On the one hand, you're saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous and records from that far back are irrelevant, if not lost, and on the other hand, you're saying that the business relationship is so intricate and involved that anyone with a problem with Seagate must be biased against Samsung.
Did Hogan know that Samsung bought Seagate? That's a huge assumption you're making.
Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.
It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness
There aren't any "basic common sense tests" of invention, prior art, and obviousness, just as there isn't a "basic common sense test" for whether an accused murderer is guilty. They're legal decisions, subject to the requirements of due process, and must be supported by evidence. Just as you can't say, "I have a gut feeling that he looks guilty, so let's send him away for life," you can't say "I have a gut feeling that this patent is obvious, so let's make it invalid." You need sufficient evidence that proves guilt (such as DNA evidence, witness accounts, etc.) or that proves obviousness (such as one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, teach or suggest everything in the patent).
And incidentally, "prior art" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prior art" is anything in the art (industry) that is prior. So, for example, the Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for Google Glass. The term you're thinking of is "anticipatory prior art" - where one piece of prior art discloses, explicitly or inherently, everything in the patent claim. So, if a patent shows A+B+C+D+E, you show that the patent is invalid because it is anticipated by finding one piece of prior art that shows A+B+C+D+E. You show that the patent is invalid because it obvious by finding one piece of art that shows A+B and another that shows C+E and another that shows D.
Note: this is a description of the law as it currently exists, not as you might wish it to be, so don't get upset with me because I'm telling you that showing obviousness requires evidence
Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get. They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this. Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
... except that Samsung, being in such a close relationship to Seagate, had access to Seagate's records and would have been easier able to find the conflict. I mean, you probably have no idea if I've ever been sued and by whom, but if someone sued your spouse, you'd probably know about it. If you and I got into a lawsuit and that person was on the jury, you'd probably notice them long before I ever would, just as I'd probably notice the other jury person who sued me long before you would.
The question this raises is not whether Apple knew, but whether Samsung knew about Hogan and sat on that information to use in case of a bad jury verdict.
Too late:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
It's not a patent as we'd think of them, but just a registration that says "you filed these papers on this date". They're never examined and have no presumption of patentability. Unlike examination systems, it actually really is a literal rubber stamp.
Maybe Slashdot should stop accepting submission from anonymous readers, so at least if submitters troll in the summary we at least know who they are. Or perhaps, I don't know, the editors could actually edit the submissions so they're not blatantly trolling.
Wouldn't help... The same editor, Samzenpus, posted both this and the story 4 days ago when Samsung did the same thing.
No, because Apple want to completely ban the Samsung devices and claims that money can't make up for the harm that Samsung's devices are causing. However, if Apple licensed their patents to HTC, then clearly money can make up for the harm and thus, Apple is only entitled to money damages, not a complete ban (if Samsung's devices are found to be infringing).
Except that it's highly unlikely that the licensed patents include the design patents at issue in this case. Design patents are more like trade dress, in that a lot of their value relies on them being distinctive. Apple can respond that if only the utility patents were infringed, then monetary damages may have been adequate, but that no such damages would be adequate for infringement of the design patents.
4 days ago when Samsung did the same thing, it was "Korean electronics giant Samsung has added three new Apple products to the list of products that the company claims infringes on its patents." But when it's the other side, suddenly, it's "Apple throws a tantrum"? Both articles were yours... Bit of a bias there, Samsungzenpus?
Every shredder I've seen for the last decade has been a crosscut shredder instead of the old style.
The shredded paper strips look like what comes out of the low-end Champion shredder I bought at Office Depot last year. Including the slightly serrated edges. That thing just cuts paper into 8mm strips. As a security device, it's not much.
Given the "artistic" layout of the strips in that photo, I'd guess that that was some Newsday photographer's idea of a dramatic reenactment, rather than an actual handful of the strips in question.
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and this is a different country we are talking about. But I was under the impression that you have to actually sue the opposing party in civil court _first_. Then warrant may be given to perform discovery of whatever judge allows you to discover
Otherwise where exactly would this evidence go to? Some evidence is sent directly to the judge (and there is no judge).
It would be pretty hilarious if the police can just take the girl's laptop directly to the (civilly) suing party. Do they (CIAPC) have to give the laptop back? How long do they have to preform discovery? Does police perform their own forensic analysis during a civil lawsuit?
There's a third option, available in most countries, referred to as an Anton Piller order (from the original case it came up in). You can sue someone, but before serving papers on them (so they don't know they're being sued), you can go to the judge and request a seizure order. Then, you show up at their place with the cops, serve the complaint and seizure order, and take the seized equipment back to the judge. They're typically used in situations where it's highly likely that the defendant will destroy evidence if they find out they're being sued - copyright and trademark infringement cases, mainly.
In most jurisdictions, the plaintiff also has to put up a large monetary bond for the seized equipment, which is given to the defendant if the case fails (so that you can't just destroy someone's business by filing a frivolous suit, seizing all of their equipment, drawing the case out for a long time, and then losing).
There are no software patents in EU though.
That's not true. Or rather, it's true in the exact same way that there are no software patents in the US. Under In re Bilski, software alone is unpatentable, but if you recite a method that's tied to a machine, then it's patent eligible subject matter. EU law is identical - software alone is unpatentable, but a method that's tied to a machine is patent eligible. For example, EP2095366 is a patent recently granted to IBM corresponding to US Patent 7760821. Both are directed to a method that's implemented in software, but both are patent eligible by virtue of being tied to a machine.
What I did not expect is that he actually has an educational and career background in technology.
It would be more unusual if he didn't have one... To be a patent attorney, you have to have a scientific or technical background - it's a requirement for eligibility to take the patent bar. Many of us have PhDs or years of engineering experience. If Kappos didn't have one, then he'd be a non-patent attorney in charge of the PTO, which would probably piss off the patent bar and examining corps more than anything else.
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.
There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.
Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.
On the contrary, while your analysis is correct with regard to copyright (few owners with $$$ to lobby congress vs. population at large with little political pressure), it's incorrect with regard to patents. With copyright, the copyright owners have a strong interest in protecting (and extending) their rights on their own works - hence the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for ever longer terms. They don't care about seizing each other's works, however... Disney has more interest in making Cars 4: The Search for more Oil than they do in making Scream 8. Sony Records has its own artists and doesn't need to copy BMG's stuff. They all care about piracy however, so they're united in - and able to throw all of their money to - extending copyright.
This doesn't apply to patents... Apple may want to extend its own patent rights, but they have just as much interest, if not more, in having IBM and Microsoft and Samsung and HP's patents fall into the public domain. Same for all of the others. So, it's not [few owners] vs. [public], but [owner] vs. [owner] vs. [owner], etc. As a result, there's no unified push to extend patent terms, and there never has been.
There's a slight tweak to this, which is pharma - there, there's a huge push by pharma companies to extend patent term... But there's also a huge push by generic manufacturers to shrink patent term. The money comes out pretty equally, so neither can effectively lobby congress for an increase.
In summary, while you're right regarding the pressures for extending copyright term, this analysis simply doesn't apply to patents, where the rights owners are not unified with a common interest.
So if Form 1 software is tweaked not to do this, then it would not infringe. At the same time, by the filing of the lawsuit, 3D Systems may have done irreperable harm to Form 1. Counter suit anyone?
If Form 1 currently infringes, such that they would have to tweak their software to not infringe, then 3D Systems did nothing wrong in filing their lawsuit. A countersuit on such grounds would be frivolous and unjustified, and only get them into more trouble.
since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't "I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts." going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?
If he were, yes, but if you check the quote marks carefully, you find that quote to be from Submitter, not from the Committee Director.
I'll see you some speculative discussions and raise you an actual legal precedent
If you bothered following my links, you'd find that they actually contain citations to many, many legal precedents.
As for your citation, first, it's dicta - you'd do better following the citation to the Boylan case.
Second, as your citation notes the previous paragraph, the "aggressive" investigation they're referring to is direct questioning. Lawyers may not directly question jurors, nor, in fact, may they communicate with them. However, they are certainly allowed to, for example, search state records to determine if there was a suit filed with one of the jurors as a party. They are also allowed to search other publicly available information, including jurors' websites, Facebook pages, etc., provided they do not contact the juror to obtain access.
So, no, doing research on a juror to find out if he has previously filed suit against a subsidiary of one of the parties is not illegal at all, as you'd know if you read either of my links.
You couldn't trademark a word of the English language, in and of itself - it would't hold up in US courts. You trademark a logo, an artistically stylized version of the word. The mere word itself is off limits to IP hucksters. Then again, I guess I doubt anyone else could come up with a new game and call it, "Monopoly" (how fitting) or "Sorry", or "Uno", or whatever.. so .. I dunno.. well, IANAL after all.
As another person pointed out, it's a German company and they don't have a US trademark, but trademarks in Europe where English isn't the first language. "Memory" is a generic term for memory here, but just like "das Gedächtnis" isn't generic in the US, "Memory" isn't generic in Germany.
Couldn't a Dictionary making company claim Prior Art?
Sure, but since a trademark doesn't have to be new, that dictionary making company wouldn't be much help. You're thinking patents. Trademarks only need to be distinctive of a manufacturer.
Exactly who 'entitled' Samsung to investigate jurors?
The courts.
Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.
Not at all... If Apple doesn't think Hogan is biased, then they had no duty to mention the suit. Furthermore, Apple has no duty to presume that Samsung would find him biased and mention it. That's Samsung's job, and if Apple were making assumptions for them, we'd be rightly outraged. Apple can only act in their own name, and if they didn't think his Seagate suit biased him, then they had no reason to raise it.
1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.
But, contrary to what an AC said above, Samsung was certainly entitled to research the juror, and certainly due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit.
The bigger question here was whether Samsung did that research, and whether they knew about the Seagate suit pre-trial. If they did, and they sat on that information in case of a losing verdict, then they may have waived any opportunity to bring it up now... unlike the movies, you don't get to keep cards up your sleeves in litigation.
3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.
Only if Apple actually thought it was bias. If they looked at it and reasonably said "meh, he doesn't seem biased," then they have no obligation to bring it up (if they were engaging in willful blindness, that's different).
it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange...
Not strange at all... Apple isn't claiming Hogan is biased, so they have no need to provide evidence of when they had knowledge about his past activities, since that knowledge is irrelevant, as far as their claims are concerned. On the contrary, Samsung is claiming Hogan is biased, and if they knew about his past activities before trial and waited to play it as a card if they lost, then that may mean that they've waived the opportunity to bring it up now.
Or, to put it another way - if (A) either party knew about Hogan's past lawsuit before trial, then (B) that party can't claim he's biased because of it. If the party isn't claiming that (!B), then it's irrelevant whether they knew (A or !A).