And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.
Yes, but not very good grounds. And while this is certainly getting appealed, the factual record is established at trial, so the jury's decision will still have a strong influence on what happens on appeal, unless the entire judgement is vacated and remanded for a new trial.
Apple did not merely mention the existence of the F700, they are alleging that the F700 is yet another example of Samsung copying them.
Yes, using the existence of it after the original design of the iPhone.
You're arguing that Samsung being able to disprove this false allegation is inadmissable?
(i) who says it's false, other than you and Samsung? The fact that you need to assume a conclusion to support your argument implies that you've got a hole in it.
(ii) You're arguing that Samsung should be able to introduce evidence that they didn't bother introducing previously, and that Apple hasn't opened the door to by discussing. There are no legal grounds for them to introduce that evidence, and it's their own fault for missing the deadline. They can certainly argue about the allegation being false, as well as ask questions of witnesses, but the specific documents? Those documents are inadmissible unless Apple brings them up.
Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.
Its existence has been allowed. The additional materials relating to its conception and design are not, as Apple never used those.
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.
Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.
Sure, the existence of it is admissible. The additional evidence related to its conception? Inadmissible, and Apple never opened the door to that.
If Samsung wanted those documents in, they had months to provide them.
I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.
They missed the deadline which was set months earlier. That's "so late as to justify exclusion," by definition. The only argument is whether they shouldn't have gotten a delay. The precedent there - and the rule, Rule 37 - says:
If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
Clearly, since it's an issue, the failure wasn't "harmless". The only question is whether it was "substantially justified". That usually comes up when a party didn't know or have reason to know about a piece of evidence until it's too late. What is Samsung's "substantial justification" for not revealing it's own product history? They certainly knew about it.
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.
What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".
The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality
I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.
but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),
As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.
and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.
Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.
Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.
Perhaps Apple did not reveal until they were in court that they were going to attempt to use the F700 as evidence that Samsung copied the iPhone?
That was in their list of evidence before the deadline. That's why it's allowed in. Samsung had to show it's evidence too, but they held it in secret, so they don't get to introduce it now.
How can you refute a claim if you aren't allowed to introduce evidence in support of your refutation?
You are, but you don't get a limitless amount of time to introduce it. I think a lot of people get misled by courtroom dramas that include Surprise Witnesses introduced for the first time at trial. Unless Samsung has a good reason why they couldn't have introduced this earlier - and considering it's their own phone and product documentation, it better be a really good reason - they don't get a pass on the rules.
If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process?
If Samsung is not allowed to introduce relevant evidence, then what is the point of this trial?
They had months to introduce it. There was a very clear date, set well in advance, at which point all evidence had to have been introduced or it would be excluded. Why should Samsung get a pass on the rules?
The courts judgement is going to be based on a partial view of the available evidence. If Samsung lose, they will instantly appeal and submit the relevant evidence that they weren't allowed to introduce the first time. Seems like a waste of time and money to allow this to happen.
There's nothing that says that the appeals court will let them introduce it either. They had months to do so and kept it secret, hoping to spring it out right before trial. That's not allowed.
And yes, you are a troll, when you jump to calling someone a fanboy for pointing out how federal rules of procedure work.
But, troll, for others in the audience, let's examine your alleged point:
Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.
Last I checked, the F700 was a Samsung phone. You're claiming that Apple hid Samsung's own product history from them, making it impossible for Samsung to get it any earlier. Why exactly should we find you credible about anything?
for showing what a mockery the courts make of the law so they can arrive at their predetermined ruling.
If evidence that supports the defense is excluded then I have to agree with the attorney for Samsung as to what point is there for a trial?
If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process? The federal courts don't actually work the way you see in Boston Legal.
President Obama has nominated Lucy Koh, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, to the federal bench in San Jose. If confirmed, she would be the nation's second Korean American federal judge.
She is the daughter of Korean immigrants. Her mother escaped North Korea after the 1945 division of Korea by walking south for two weeks while suffering from yellow fever, and her father fought against the Communists in the Korean War, then opposed a military dictatorship in South Korea and immigrated to the United States, according to the Asian American Justice Center, a civil rights group.
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
You asked if anyone thought the judge could be fair...
Yes, I did ask that
... and implied if not outright said that you thought said judge was biased...
Nope, that "implied" thing is a conjecture in your own mind.
I never said "BIAS" and never meant it
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Holy shiat, dude. You're the most transparent concern troll in history. Do you think ANYONE will fall for this? And come on, with the way you keep emphasizing "judge LUCY," are we really supposed to take you seriously at all?
The preliminary injunction in this same exact case?
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
Very fair. She's previously ruled against Apple on several matters.
But I have a more important question... You keep not capitalizing the word "judge" and keep emphasizing that her name is "Lucy"? Is this a subtle attempt to troll based on her gender? Is this a classic "she's a woman, what does she know about technology" bit of sexist FUD? Why exactly should we think you are being fair?
It's not even clear if posting the email is against their TOS even if it is private... and it isn't private. Their email naming scheme is clear and the full address has been published before.
"Private" doesn't mean "uncrackable". NBC apparently hadn't published it before, so regardless of how simplistic their email naming scheme, the email was still private.
This is corporate asshattery.... there isn't any doubt about it to anyone but the poster. NBC and Twitter are partners and they muzzled a critic for a trumped up infraction.
A conspiracy theory like that only makes sense if NBC and Twitter are muzzling other critics... But wait:
Read #nbcfail on twitter yourself
Apparently, not only are they not muzzling critics, said criticism is indexed and easily searchable.
We can argue about the Streisand effect and the wisdom of the account suspension all we want, but to claim that Twitter is engaging in censorship over a viewpoint seems to be contradicted by the wide number of posts they're hosting with that same viewpoint.
That's the template used by NBC for their CORPORATE emails. Replace "first.last" with the name of any exec and that's the amazingly private super-secret personal details the journalist had his account killed for.
But, the email wasn't posted publicly anywhere by NBC. Although one could easily figure it out, that doesn't suddenly make it public. For example, phone numbers all have the template nnn-nnnn, and due to common exchanges, they can be easily narrowed down to a few thousand numbers and brute forced to find anyone within a geographic area. Does that mean that they are all public, regardless of unlisted status?
The question isn't the difficulty of determining the email, but whether the email owner chose to publish it or not. Since they didn't, then Twitter did the right thing here.
I have to wonder how many of these are people that received a free upgrade with their new Macintoshes.../didn't rtfm
Maybe you should have:
Philip Schiller, iPhone maker’s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, said, “Just a year after the incredibly successful introduction of Lion, customers have downloaded Mountain Lion over three million times in just four days, making it our most successful release ever.”
6. Congratulations, with this research at hand, some crotchety geezer can shout that it sounds the same, then blame some anonymous music industry exec for ensuring that all music anywhere is exactly similar.
While I agree with everything you've said here, based on the posts in this Slashdot thread, I would expand this from "crotchety geezer" to "anyone without an open mind". People who listen to only country will claim all hip hop sounds the same. People who listen to only jazz will claim that all techno sounds the same. People who listen to only pop will claim that all blues sounds the same. It's not a failing of musical creativity by the artists, but on the part of the listener.
"Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape"
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped, beaten, and dumped in an alleyway.
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped after being drugged, and who were accused of making it up because they were not beaten and dumped in an alleyway.
... of course, you don't think those count, right?
They patented multitasking? Shouldn't something so obvious have expired a decade or two ago? Adding "with wireless" or "while riding a bicycle in a blue tshirt" shouldn't be enough to extend something so obvious, even if that's a old trick with pharma etc patents.
1) It's an old "trick" with pharma patents because small molecule chemistry is unpredictable. 6-Fluoro-3-piperidin-4-yl-benzo[d]isoxazole is an irritant, but 5-Fluoro-3-piperidin-4-yl-benzo[d]isoxazole is a useful intermediate product for making V1a receptor antagonists. There was a similar one in a court case a few years back - a specific molecule was moderately helpful in curing a disease, and was based on a benzene ring. If you moved the hydroxyl group by one space, it became super efficient at curing the disease. Move it one more space? Deadly poison.
So, the analogy would be if you put a red shirt on your cyclist and he goes 10 mph faster, but put a blue shirt on him and he explodes. With something unpredictable like that, it's not obvious.
2) That said, in the predictable arts like software, there aren't actually any patents with claims that say "A method of doing [x] on the internet, comprising: [x], on the internet" or "A system for [x] with wireless, comprising: [x], with wireless" where [x] is known. Not a one. People get confused because of some dependent claims that may say "The method of claim 1, wherein the network is the internet," but they're really not claiming a patent on the internet. The independent claim (claim 1) must be itself patentable for those dependent claims to be patentable.
Basically, the existence of a "with wireless" patent is a myth.
There's no requirement that Samsung gives Apple a license at any price, let alone the price Apple thinks they should pay. And if someone's been busy trying to sue you out of existence in every nation on the planet, how likely would you be to sell them a license?
Since the patents in question are part of a communication standard and subject to FRAND licensing, then, yeah, there is a requirement that Samsung give Apple a license, and not at "any" price, but at a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory price. So, their saying "$1 million dollars per phone sold" wouldn't fly.
And Apple hasn't been trying to sue Samsung out of existence. Who do you think makes the A5 chip in every iPad?
According to the judge, the ridiculous part isn't the patents (and feel free to have your own opinions regarding those), but rather the license dispute:
Apple refused to pay a license fee for the technology that allows phones to conduct multiple tasks including taking calls while uploading photos to the internet, Samsung's lawyer Neil Young said at the start of the trial. Apple was willing to pay and Samsung refused, the Cupertino, California-based company's lawyer Stephen Burley said.
Apple says "we were willing to pay a license fee, but they wouldn't take it," and Samsung says "they refused to pay a fee." Translation: Apple was okay with paying, but not the price that Samsung wanted. So this isn't so much a patent dispute, as it is just an argument over a license fee... in which case, yes, mediation would be a lot more reasonable.
If the point of sharing the information isn't in the patent application, what is the point?
Because if you don't have a patent, and you share the information in a white paper, thesis, or functional spec, you have no trade secret protection. It's public, forever, and so if you have any competitors, you better hope that you didn't have any value in keeping them from copying your system.
I would argue the opposite to any sort of encouragement to independent publication as well. My point is also that those other approaches to publication would be used regardless of the patent status or any hope of an exclusive use of the idea.
Okay, do you have any evidence for that?
You certainly aren't making your point about the usefulness of the patent process itself or why it should be used instead of publishing the idea in an industry trade magazine or journal.
Again, I think you misunderstand. The idea is that these are in addition to, not instead of.
For that matter, it doesn't even explain why trade secrets should be shared at all.
Because society benefits from fewer trade secrets and more public domain knowledge. It's odd that someone is arguing against patents, but also for more trade secrets... unless they're really in favor of more secrecy.
Unless such external publication is explicitly required by the patent process, the entire rationale you are giving here is a bunch of meaningless BS.
In a way, it is. 35 USC 112 requires that the patent contain sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the patent. Hence why they contain flow charts and diagrams. One argument for invalidity is that the patent doesn't contain enough information... and one counter to that is having sufficient other disclosure (white papers, theses, functional specs) such that the "ordinary skill in the art" is pretty advanced. So, yes, if the patent doesn't include that description, then other published documents probably should.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.
Yes, but not very good grounds. And while this is certainly getting appealed, the factual record is established at trial, so the jury's decision will still have a strong influence on what happens on appeal, unless the entire judgement is vacated and remanded for a new trial.
Apple did not merely mention the existence of the F700, they are alleging that the F700 is yet another example of Samsung copying them.
Yes, using the existence of it after the original design of the iPhone.
You're arguing that Samsung being able to disprove this false allegation is inadmissable?
(i) who says it's false, other than you and Samsung? The fact that you need to assume a conclusion to support your argument implies that you've got a hole in it.
(ii) You're arguing that Samsung should be able to introduce evidence that they didn't bother introducing previously, and that Apple hasn't opened the door to by discussing. There are no legal grounds for them to introduce that evidence, and it's their own fault for missing the deadline. They can certainly argue about the allegation being false, as well as ask questions of witnesses, but the specific documents? Those documents are inadmissible unless Apple brings them up.
Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.
Its existence has been allowed. The additional materials relating to its conception and design are not, as Apple never used those.
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.
Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.
Sure, the existence of it is admissible. The additional evidence related to its conception? Inadmissible, and Apple never opened the door to that.
If Samsung wanted those documents in, they had months to provide them.
I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.
They missed the deadline which was set months earlier. That's "so late as to justify exclusion," by definition. The only argument is whether they shouldn't have gotten a delay. The precedent there - and the rule, Rule 37 - says:
If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
Clearly, since it's an issue, the failure wasn't "harmless". The only question is whether it was "substantially justified". That usually comes up when a party didn't know or have reason to know about a piece of evidence until it's too late. What is Samsung's "substantial justification" for not revealing it's own product history? They certainly knew about it.
Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press
Actually, she complained about the press release that specifically called her out. That's a different issue.
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.
What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".
The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality
I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.
but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),
As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.
and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,
Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.
Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.
Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.
Perhaps Apple did not reveal until they were in court that they were going to attempt to use the F700 as evidence that Samsung copied the iPhone?
That was in their list of evidence before the deadline. That's why it's allowed in. Samsung had to show it's evidence too, but they held it in secret, so they don't get to introduce it now.
How can you refute a claim if you aren't allowed to introduce evidence in support of your refutation?
You are, but you don't get a limitless amount of time to introduce it. I think a lot of people get misled by courtroom dramas that include Surprise Witnesses introduced for the first time at trial. Unless Samsung has a good reason why they couldn't have introduced this earlier - and considering it's their own phone and product documentation, it better be a really good reason - they don't get a pass on the rules.
If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process?
If Samsung is not allowed to introduce relevant evidence, then what is the point of this trial?
They had months to introduce it. There was a very clear date, set well in advance, at which point all evidence had to have been introduced or it would be excluded. Why should Samsung get a pass on the rules?
The courts judgement is going to be based on a partial view of the available evidence. If Samsung lose, they will instantly appeal and submit the relevant evidence that they weren't allowed to introduce the first time. Seems like a waste of time and money to allow this to happen.
There's nothing that says that the appeals court will let them introduce it either. They had months to do so and kept it secret, hoping to spring it out right before trial. That's not allowed.
But, troll, for others in the audience, let's examine your alleged point:
Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.
Last I checked, the F700 was a Samsung phone. You're claiming that Apple hid Samsung's own product history from them, making it impossible for Samsung to get it any earlier. Why exactly should we find you credible about anything?
for showing what a mockery the courts make of the law so they can arrive at their predetermined ruling.
If evidence that supports the defense is excluded then I have to agree with the attorney for Samsung as to what point is there for a trial?
If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process? The federal courts don't actually work the way you see in Boston Legal.
FYI, judge Lucy Koh is not a Korean-American
She is a Chinese-American
Get your facts right, please
Obama picks Korean American for federal bench
President Obama has nominated Lucy Koh, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, to the federal bench in San Jose. If confirmed, she would be the nation's second Korean American federal judge.
She is the daughter of Korean immigrants. Her mother escaped North Korea after the 1945 division of Korea by walking south for two weeks while suffering from yellow fever, and her father fought against the Communists in the Korean War, then opposed a military dictatorship in South Korea and immigrated to the United States, according to the Asian American Justice Center, a civil rights group.
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
If I were Judge Lucy Koh, I would excuse myself from this case, or else, no matter how I conduct myself in this case, people will still question whether my judgement is fair
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Of course, Judge Koh is Korean-American. From his previous posts:
If you know Koreans, you would know that one special Korean characteristic is that they are one of the most stubborn race in this world
You asked if anyone thought the judge could be fair ...
Yes, I did ask that
Nope, that "implied" thing is a conjecture in your own mind. I never said "BIAS" and never meant it My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Holy shiat, dude. You're the most transparent concern troll in history. Do you think ANYONE will fall for this? And come on, with the way you keep emphasizing "judge LUCY," are we really supposed to take you seriously at all?
Isn't the judge, - Lucy Koh, - the same judge that grant an injunction for Apple, against Samsung ?
As illustrated in Slashdot's report on http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/07/02/0241212/samsung-appeals-apples-injunction-against-galaxy-nexus
The preliminary injunction in this same exact case?
How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
Very fair. She's previously ruled against Apple on several matters.
But I have a more important question... You keep not capitalizing the word "judge" and keep emphasizing that her name is "Lucy"? Is this a subtle attempt to troll based on her gender? Is this a classic "she's a woman, what does she know about technology" bit of sexist FUD? Why exactly should we think you are being fair?
It's not even clear if posting the email is against their TOS even if it is private... and it isn't private. Their email naming scheme is clear and the full address has been published before.
"Private" doesn't mean "uncrackable". NBC apparently hadn't published it before, so regardless of how simplistic their email naming scheme, the email was still private.
This is corporate asshattery.... there isn't any doubt about it to anyone but the poster. NBC and Twitter are partners and they muzzled a critic for a trumped up infraction.
A conspiracy theory like that only makes sense if NBC and Twitter are muzzling other critics... But wait:
Read #nbcfail on twitter yourself
Apparently, not only are they not muzzling critics, said criticism is indexed and easily searchable.
We can argue about the Streisand effect and the wisdom of the account suspension all we want, but to claim that Twitter is engaging in censorship over a viewpoint seems to be contradicted by the wide number of posts they're hosting with that same viewpoint.
first.last@nbcuni.com
That's the template used by NBC for their CORPORATE emails. Replace "first.last" with the name of any exec and that's the amazingly private super-secret personal details the journalist had his account killed for.
But, the email wasn't posted publicly anywhere by NBC. Although one could easily figure it out, that doesn't suddenly make it public. For example, phone numbers all have the template nnn-nnnn, and due to common exchanges, they can be easily narrowed down to a few thousand numbers and brute forced to find anyone within a geographic area. Does that mean that they are all public, regardless of unlisted status?
The question isn't the difficulty of determining the email, but whether the email owner chose to publish it or not. Since they didn't, then Twitter did the right thing here.
Yes, and everyone who bought mac in the last few months had it ship with lion, but was entitled to upgrade and download mountain lion for FREE.
You're right. I withdraw my previous objection.
I have to wonder how many of these are people that received a free upgrade with their new Macintoshes... /didn't rtfm
Maybe you should have:
Philip Schiller, iPhone maker’s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, said, “Just a year after the incredibly successful introduction of Lion, customers have downloaded Mountain Lion over three million times in just four days, making it our most successful release ever.”
6. Congratulations, with this research at hand, some crotchety geezer can shout that it sounds the same, then blame some anonymous music industry exec for ensuring that all music anywhere is exactly similar.
While I agree with everything you've said here, based on the posts in this Slashdot thread, I would expand this from "crotchety geezer" to "anyone without an open mind". People who listen to only country will claim all hip hop sounds the same. People who listen to only jazz will claim that all techno sounds the same. People who listen to only pop will claim that all blues sounds the same. It's not a failing of musical creativity by the artists, but on the part of the listener.
"Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape"
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped, beaten, and dumped in an alleyway.
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped after being drugged, and who were accused of making it up because they were not beaten and dumped in an alleyway.
They patented multitasking? Shouldn't something so obvious have expired a decade or two ago? Adding "with wireless" or "while riding a bicycle in a blue tshirt" shouldn't be enough to extend something so obvious, even if that's a old trick with pharma etc patents.
1) It's an old "trick" with pharma patents because small molecule chemistry is unpredictable. 6-Fluoro-3-piperidin-4-yl-benzo[d]isoxazole is an irritant, but 5-Fluoro-3-piperidin-4-yl-benzo[d]isoxazole is a useful intermediate product for making V1a receptor antagonists. There was a similar one in a court case a few years back - a specific molecule was moderately helpful in curing a disease, and was based on a benzene ring. If you moved the hydroxyl group by one space, it became super efficient at curing the disease. Move it one more space? Deadly poison.
So, the analogy would be if you put a red shirt on your cyclist and he goes 10 mph faster, but put a blue shirt on him and he explodes. With something unpredictable like that, it's not obvious.
2) That said, in the predictable arts like software, there aren't actually any patents with claims that say "A method of doing [x] on the internet, comprising: [x], on the internet" or "A system for [x] with wireless, comprising: [x], with wireless" where [x] is known. Not a one. People get confused because of some dependent claims that may say "The method of claim 1, wherein the network is the internet," but they're really not claiming a patent on the internet. The independent claim (claim 1) must be itself patentable for those dependent claims to be patentable.
Basically, the existence of a "with wireless" patent is a myth.
There's no requirement that Samsung gives Apple a license at any price, let alone the price Apple thinks they should pay. And if someone's been busy trying to sue you out of existence in every nation on the planet, how likely would you be to sell them a license?
Since the patents in question are part of a communication standard and subject to FRAND licensing, then, yeah, there is a requirement that Samsung give Apple a license, and not at "any" price, but at a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory price. So, their saying "$1 million dollars per phone sold" wouldn't fly.
And Apple hasn't been trying to sue Samsung out of existence. Who do you think makes the A5 chip in every iPad?
Apple refused to pay a license fee for the technology that allows phones to conduct multiple tasks including taking calls while uploading photos to the internet, Samsung's lawyer Neil Young said at the start of the trial. Apple was willing to pay and Samsung refused, the Cupertino, California-based company's lawyer Stephen Burley said.
Apple says "we were willing to pay a license fee, but they wouldn't take it," and Samsung says "they refused to pay a fee." Translation: Apple was okay with paying, but not the price that Samsung wanted. So this isn't so much a patent dispute, as it is just an argument over a license fee... in which case, yes, mediation would be a lot more reasonable.
If the point of sharing the information isn't in the patent application, what is the point?
Because if you don't have a patent, and you share the information in a white paper, thesis, or functional spec, you have no trade secret protection. It's public, forever, and so if you have any competitors, you better hope that you didn't have any value in keeping them from copying your system.
I would argue the opposite to any sort of encouragement to independent publication as well. My point is also that those other approaches to publication would be used regardless of the patent status or any hope of an exclusive use of the idea.
Okay, do you have any evidence for that?
You certainly aren't making your point about the usefulness of the patent process itself or why it should be used instead of publishing the idea in an industry trade magazine or journal.
Again, I think you misunderstand. The idea is that these are in addition to, not instead of.
For that matter, it doesn't even explain why trade secrets should be shared at all.
Because society benefits from fewer trade secrets and more public domain knowledge. It's odd that someone is arguing against patents, but also for more trade secrets... unless they're really in favor of more secrecy.
Unless such external publication is explicitly required by the patent process, the entire rationale you are giving here is a bunch of meaningless BS.
In a way, it is. 35 USC 112 requires that the patent contain sufficient written description to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the patent. Hence why they contain flow charts and diagrams. One argument for invalidity is that the patent doesn't contain enough information... and one counter to that is having sufficient other disclosure (white papers, theses, functional specs) such that the "ordinary skill in the art" is pretty advanced. So, yes, if the patent doesn't include that description, then other published documents probably should.