Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict

[bsolar]

yes it is, different CPU is different algorithm. same idea different implementation.

By your rationale Samsung's implementation is already most likely not infringing because they already have a different implementation for the same idea. They didn't have Apple's source code so they had to reimplement the functionality from scratch, which usually leads to different implementations. Obviously this rationale doesn't stand.

we've had pinch and zoom for a long time but doing it on capacitive touch screen is different than other screen technologies. same with slide to unlock.

It's true that doing these gestures on a capacitive display might be different enough to make the prior art not relevant, but it's not the rationale the jury used.

The slide to unlock patent was ruled invalid in the HTC court case.

 

[KnightWRX]

The slide to unlock patent was ruled invalid in the HTC court case.

Of course it was, the Neonode did it prior... on a non-capactitative touch screen.

Of course, the poster you're replying to is also quite mixed up about what an algorithm is and what a CPU instruction set is. The CPU does not dictate the algorithm, I can write a Bubble Sort or Quick Sort on x86, ARM, PPC, SPARC, MIPS, ALPHA or whatever other obscure CPU architecture you can name. It will all use the same algorithm : Bubble Sort or Quick Sort.

Heck, BSD provides its own qsort() call, and BSD runs on a number of different CPU architectures. Algorithms are high level theoritical constructs. They can be implemented in a copyrighted fashion in source code at a high level and then compiled to run on many different CPUs.

The patent in this case would be on the high level Quick Sort algorithm. Copyright would be on the C implementation for BSD or on the Java implementation for the J2SE or on the C# implementation in .NET (and if someone had an actual patent on Quick sort, all these vendors/inviduals would need a license to it). Then all these implementations can run on various different CPUs, depending on if a compiler can compile the code to run on the actual CPU.

A lot of people confused as to what IP protection schemes exist, how they interact and what they protect. And especially on what constitutes prior art and what is obviousness. Unfortunately for us, Samsung and Apple (yes, even Apple), Vel Hogan seems quite confused too on how software works. He's obviously mixed up if he thinks Apple's implementation of their patent working on a CPU different than the prior art invalidates the prior art.

 

[rendevouspoo]

Spoken like someone who's never really invented anything in their life...

WTF did Apple invent?

 

[aristotle]

By your rationale Samsung's implementation is already most likely not infringing because they already have a different implementation for the same idea. They didn't have Apple's source code so they had to reimplement the functionality from scratch, which usually leads to different implementations. Obviously this rationale doesn't stand.

Ok, I think you are confusing algorithm's with "code". An algorithm is a specific description on how to do something. That is patentable. If you implement a patented algorithm using code written from scratch, you are not infringing on another person's copyright but you are still infringing on the patent.

An algorithm is an abstraction of a specific implementation which could be sometimes implemented as source code or in the silicon of a chip. The mode (physical or code) or even the language is irrelevant to whether it infringes on the patent.

Patents describe implementations whereas copyright project the unique manifestations of that patent. You can be in the clear of any copyright infringement but still violate a patent for which you would have to obtain a license from the patent holder.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ok, I think you are confusing algorithm's with "code". An algorithm is a specific description on how to do something. That is patentable. If you implement a patented algorithm using code written from scratch, you are not infringing on another person's copyright but you are still infringing on the patent.

An algorithm is an abstraction of a specific implementation which could be sometimes implemented as source code or in the silicon of a chip. The mode (physical or code) or even the language is irrelevant to whether it infringes on the patent.

Patents describe implementations whereas copyright project the unique manifestations of that patent. You can be in the clear of any copyright infringement but still violate a patent for which you would have to obtain a license from the patent holder.

And if you read the comments by Vel Hogan, he's mixing it up. He's saying "prior art is not valid" because Apple's implementation can't run on its CPU and the prior art's implementation can't run on Apple's CPU.

So you seem to be agreeing with us that this foreman goofed. Bad.

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

No, I'm not confusing concepts with implementation. Software patents are considerably more vague than mechanical ones, to the point where you practically are patenting a concept.

Case in point, my favorite BS patent: in-app purchases. I'm sure there are a thousand ways to implement this feature in software, depending on which language you use, your hardware, and what have you. So why did Apple, MS, and the rest even bother licensing it? If software patents are only defined by specific implementations, then it should be easy for anyone to work around.

But they didn't.

Why?

Also, going by your definition, a specific gesture resulting in a specific action shouldn't be patentable, because a gesture is a natural, usually obvious motion, and the end result is considered unpatentable in concern to mechanical patents . Not so with software patents, where the concept and end result are a part of the patent itself.

This is the big problem with software patents. They rarely allow room to innovate around on improve upon without infringing upon the ideas presented within the patent itself.

 

[aristotle]

And if you read the comments by Vel Hogan, he's mixing it up. He's saying "prior art is not valid" because Apple's implementation can't run on its CPU and the prior art's implementation can't run on Apple's CPU.

So you seem to be agreeing with us that this foreman goofed. Bad.

Whether he goofed on his explanation is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Samsung violated a number of patents on a number of devices. Prior art is relevant when the patent application is being adjudicated by a patent examiner or the main task of a jury is to determine whether the patent was valid. That was not the main focus of the trial. Jury did find that the patents were valid, however, they felt that they were there to determine if the patent was not obvious rather than re-examine the prior art for each patent.

The main focus of the trial was whether Samsung violated the patents and whether it was done willfully. The jury decided that Samsung was infringing with a number of their devices and they also believed that Samsung was willful in their actions after being admonished by both Apple and Google prior to the introduction of their products to the market.

@Renzatic, yes you are confusing the two concepts. Something like a one click "buy" patent does not describe the "code" but rather the interaction between the system and the user. That is a business process and it is patentable. The code used is not but that is protected by copyright. I'm a developer but you apparently are not.

 

[bsolar]

Ok, I think you are confusing algorithm's with "code".

I think you missed the "obviously this rationale doesn't stand" at the end of the pharagraph. My point is that different implementations don't necessarily imply non-infringment just like they don't imply invalid prior art.

 

[rjohnstone]

Whether he goofed on his explanation is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Samsung violated a number of patents on a number of devices. Prior art is relevant when the patent application is being adjudicated by a patent examiner or the main task of a jury is to determine whether the patent was valid. That was not the main focus of the trial. Jury did find that the patents were valid, however, they felt that they were there to determine if the patent was not obvious rather than re-examine the prior art for each patent.

Then the jury, or more likely your assumption of what the jury thought they were there for is wrong.

The main focus of the trial was whether Samsung violated the patents and whether it was done willfully.

Wrong again...

They were tasked with determining infringement as well as determine patent validity.

One can be found to infringe, but if the patent is deemed invalid, the infringement becomes moot. Willful or not.

Prior art would not have been presented in the case if infringement was the only thing being determined.

The foreman applied the incorrect analysis when looking at prior art... plain and simple.
He managed to convince the rest of the jury that his premise was correct.

 

[kdarling]

we've had pinch and zoom for a long time but doing it on capacitive touch screen is different than other screen technologies. same with slide to unlock.

Just a note that Apple didn't limit their patent application to capacitive screens.

Their claim section starts with:

"A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, ..."

 

[KnightWRX]

Whether he goofed on his explanation is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

It's not. If he thought prior art was invalid only because of implementation details like the CPU architecture the copyrighted implementation was built for, then it changes the whole verdict. Apple's copyrighted implementation of their patent being tied to a CPU architecture does not mean the patent is valid in light of prior art that has a copyrighted implementation that runs on a different CPU architecture. You've said so yourself.

As such, if the prior art is now valid, that means the patent isn't based on being non-novel. If the patent is invalid, there can have been no infringement.

Hence, you agree with the premise that the verdict is flawed as it was made with flawed assumptions about what constitutes valid prior art. Now you're just trying to spin things to say you don't, when in fact, your previous post said you did.

A flawed verdict helps no one. Even you can admit that much without compromising your ever vigilant watch over all things "Apple must never be accused of wrong!".

 

[bsolar]

Whether he goofed on his explanation is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Samsung violated a number of patents on a number of devices. Prior art is relevant when the patent application is being adjudicated by a patent examiner or the main task of a jury is to determine whether the patent was valid. That was not the main focus of the trial. Jury did find that the patents were valid, however, they felt that they were there to determine if the patent was not obvious rather than re-examine the prior art for each patent.

It's clearly the jury's duty to evaluate first whether the patents are valid, and arguably the most important task they were supposed to do. Patents are the foundation upon which all other claims rest, if the patents are found to be not valid Samsung cannot be found infringing them and thus there are no damages to Apple. Evaluating accurately the patent's scope and validity is absolutely crucial in cases like this.

Prior art is the typical way patents get invalidated, that's why the jury was instructed expressely about what can and what cannot be considered prior art and were definately supposed to evaluate it following said instructions. If they "felt" they were there to do something else it means they didn't pay any attention to what they were supposed to do at all.

The problem is more that is very difficult for a jury to do these evaluations, so it's not a surprise that major mistakes like these can happen.

 

[Piggie]

Is this not how AMD made chips to compete wit Intel.

Reverse engineered to look at the output a chip gave and then write their own unique new "different" code so that when an input was fed into a CPU is did produce that output (stupidly simple explanation)

So the chip took the same code, gave the same output, but how it did it internally was all AMD's work

No?

 

[KnightWRX]

Is this not how AMD made chips to compete wit Intel.

Reverse engineered to look at the output a chip gave and then write their own unique new "different" code so that when an input was fed into a CPU is did produce that output (stupidly simple explanation)

So the chip took the same code, gave the same output, but how it did it internally was all AMD's work

No?

That's how Compaq did the IBM BIOS. And the Compaq version actually ended up half the size (the engineers never understood why).

AMD had a license to the x86 instruction set.

 

[skunnykart]

Dude, he developed an incandescent lightbulb. Great, but many things Edison did was new. Edison developed an incandescent lightbulb thats long lasting using tungsten as the filament. Tungsten was relative unknown then. Edison used the screw design for the electrodes which makes lightbulbs easy to install. Granted, Swan did know to eliminate oxidation by using a vacuum bulb. But he was one scientist who was ahead of his time. In a test of obviousness, I'm willing to bet not even 1 out of a 100 people would think to evacuate air from the bulb, or even how to do it in practice. The average designer can look at Apple's interface implementation like bounce, pinch to zoom, or slide to unlock, and think so what.

Yeah so Edison improved on what Swan invented.

 

[satcomer]

WTF did Apple invent?

The personal computer.
iPhone
iPad
Newton
Plus many other I can't think of right now.

 

[dba415]

The personal computer.
iPhone
iPad
Newton
Plus many other I can't think of right now.

do you think Apple should have had a patent on the personal computer and that no one else should have been able to make a device that was similar to it?

 

[KnightWRX]

The personal computer.

Uh ? Apple did not invent the personal computer. Not even close to it.

For the rest, you're just listing Apple products, the question you were replying to was aimed at technologies. What technologies did Apple invent ?

Apple usually doesn't invent. They popularize and polish.

 

[Macist]

Looking at the social networks this seems to have in part backfired for Apple. People hate lawyers. Hate them. Especially when it's what Joe Bloggs sees as just frivolous garbage removed from what they consider 'useful work'. Thus, just because your set of bastards win doesn't mean their bastardness won't rub off on your brand.

 

[gnasher729]

It's not. If he thought prior art was invalid only because of implementation details like the CPU architecture the copyrighted implementation was built for, then it changes the whole verdict. Apple's copyrighted implementation of their patent being tied to a CPU architecture does not mean the patent is valid in light of prior art that has a copyrighted implementation that runs on a different CPU architecture. You've said so yourself.

And the whole discussion is totally pointless, because anything the jury foreman says about why decisions were made is just hearsay. What he says doesn't matter one bit. For a successful appeal, Samsung would have to prove that the jury came to a conclusion that no reasonable jury could arrive at.

 

[divinox]

You mean petty stuff like pinch-to-zoom that Apple patented and is therefore entitled to license? Are you serious?

That Apple patented despite clear prior art. Yes. We are serious.

----------

Of course it was, the Neonode did it prior... on a non-capactitative touch screen.

Of course, the poster you're replying to is also quite mixed up about what an algorithm is and what a CPU instruction set is. The CPU does not dictate the algorithm, I can write a Bubble Sort or Quick Sort on x86, ARM, PPC, SPARC, MIPS, ALPHA or whatever other obscure CPU architecture you can name. It will all use the same algorithm : Bubble Sort or Quick Sort.

Heck, BSD provides its own qsort() call, and BSD runs on a number of different CPU architectures. Algorithms are high level theoritical constructs. They can be implemented in a copyrighted fashion in source code at a high level and then compiled to run on many different CPUs.

The patent in this case would be on the high level Quick Sort algorithm. Copyright would be on the C implementation for BSD or on the Java implementation for the J2SE or on the C# implementation in .NET (and if someone had an actual patent on Quick sort, all these vendors/inviduals would need a license to it). Then all these implementations can run on various different CPUs, depending on if a compiler can compile the code to run on the actual CPU.

A lot of people confused as to what IP protection schemes exist, how they interact and what they protect. And especially on what constitutes prior art and what is obviousness. Unfortunately for us, Samsung and Apple (yes, even Apple), Vel Hogan seems quite confused too on how software works. He's obviously mixed up if he thinks Apple's implementation of their patent working on a CPU different than the prior art invalidates the prior art.

I am sorry to inform you that i have patented "Sort" on Smart mobile internet capable devices. All your monies are belong to us! Hail USPTO! Dont make me go Apple on you!

 

[samcraig]

And the whole discussion is totally pointless, because anything the jury foreman says about why decisions were made is just hearsay. What he says doesn't matter one bit. For a successful appeal, Samsung would have to prove that the jury came to a conclusion that no reasonable jury could arrive at.

There are many angles Samsung could take for a successful appeal.

 

[KnightWRX]

And the whole discussion is totally pointless, because anything the jury foreman says about why decisions were made is just hearsay. What he says doesn't matter one bit. For a successful appeal, Samsung would have to prove that the jury came to a conclusion that no reasonable jury could arrive at.

Consdering that :

- The jury failed to follow instructions on punitive damages.
- The jury failed to properly asses prior art as stated in the law
- The jury did not review many of the evidence and did not ask question.

It's fair to think that maybe Samsung will move for Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict or Judgement as a matter of law. Will Koh grant it if they do ? Not saying she would or wouldn't, we'll see.

But the more the foreman talks, the more he feeds the lawyers. Of course, if the Obama patent reform had gone through, we wouldn't be discussing this as probably the jury trial would not have occurred at all and these mistakes would not have been made :

http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

These mistakes do not help Apple at all. Even Apple shouldn't be happy about all of this, it tarnishes their win with doubt and uncertainty.

 

[AppleMark]

And the Motorola RAZR came first...so...what's your point?

Probably not the point you think I was making. Apple did not design the iPhone and base it almost identically to the RAZR to court legal action and then bleat about it, which resulted in the conclusion we are all discussing. So what is your point?

I'm now confused by your apparently conflicting position as much as by your lack of understanding of how patents work.

I am sorry you are confused. My general understanding of patents in the instance of this case overall is as clear enough and my position is not conflicting if you actually read my posts in full and in context.

Fact is, Apple WAS first to market with VIABLE touch screen devices for the MASS Market, it then patented it's innovations. How this was derived through clearly legal and available and allowable processes is now irrelevant.

Regardless of which patents were or were not breached, Samsung's devices look and feel too much like Apple devices already established in the market. So much so, that two huge companies went to war and the result.....? A court ruled compensation of $1 Billion Dollars. No amount of debating can detract from this point. It is not so confusing really.

Viability is irrelevant when it comes to patents.
The capabilities in the iPhone/iPad existed before they were manufactured.

But they did not exist in the total and integrated package which a court ruled that Samsung emulated a little too closely, without permission or license.

The risk Apple took still doesn't give them exclusive rights to tech they didn't invent.

No, but it is like saying that BMW did not invent all the concepts or mechanics in the automobile and on that basis design a car which looks almost identical to an M3, except use round shaped door handles instead of rectangle ones and hope to get away with it.

It is probably fair to say that most people on this forum and possibly the watching world would probably have not been drawn to this case if it were not for the blatant design similarities of Samsung's device offerings.

Did Apple invent the smartphone? The capacitive touchscreen? Gestures? They popularized them, sure. But that doesn't give them exclusive rights to concepts already written about, studied and implemented elsewhere.

What Apple did with the iPhone was take a concept most other companies assumed wouldn't sell, put it into a nice package, and watched it sell like balls wild mad crazy. These other companies? If they're copying anything, it's Apple's success, not their technological concepts.

Again, this has nothing to do with who thought of however a number of isolated ideas first. It is about how the ideas were combined into a product which became a PATENTED success and was then ruled to have been copied.

BMW do not need to copy every detail (to be a success) and court legal action from Mercedes Benz and vice versa to be able to come up with similar, yet very different luxury vehicles which do almost the same thing the same way. That is the point... clear difference in implementation of a concept, not just plain and simple plagiarism.

 

[Oletros]

Again, this has nothing to do with who thought of however a number of isolated ideas first. It is about how the ideas were combined into a product which became a PATENTED success and was then ruled to have been copied.

You're confussing the product with the patents that apply to that product

And being a success has nothing to do with the validity or not of the patents involved or the possible prior art.