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

[KnightWRX]

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.

Mass market viability is not something that defeats prior art though. Prior art, no matter if it wasn't viable in the market place still trumps patents granted without knowledge of this prior art and can be used to invalidate patents.

I am again confused by your lack of understanding of patents in general. The fact you claim clarity after being corrected is even more puzzling, it's as if you're refusing reality.

 

[samcraig]

Mass market viability is not something that defeats prior art though. Prior art, no matter if it wasn't viable in the market place still trumps patents granted without knowledge of this prior art and can be used to invalidate patents.

I am again confused by your lack of understanding of patents in general. The fact you claim clarity after being corrected is even more puzzling, it's as if you're refusing reality.

Exactly.

And patents are worthless unless they are proven valid anyway. It's a filing. Unless it gets challenged and either upheld or invalidated - it's really not all that much. That's why it is, indeed, VERY important how the patent is defined and that it can hold up to scrutiny.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you read the transcript of the interview, the line you are discussing is in reference to the '460 patent. Which is a Samsung patent. That Apple was found to not infringe. So I think your whole argument is backwards.

From Groklaw:
"Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."

 

[samcraig]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you read the transcript of the interview, the line you are discussing is in reference to the '460 patent. Which is a Samsung patent. That Apple was found to not infringe. So I think your whole argument is backwards.

From Groklaw:
"Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."

But didn't that AHA moment decide how he looks at all of the patents? I'm asking. I don't know.

 

[BaldiMac]

But didn't that AHA moment decide how he looks at all of the patents? I'm asking. I don't know.

Maybe. But that AHA moment was just him figuring out that he had a good way to present patent concepts to the rest of the jury.

The CPU comments that everyone jumped on (Groklaw, KnightWRX, etc.) seem to be related to the Samsung's '460 patent.

 

[Melab]

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.

Obama and the legislators that wrote that bill had no conception of fixing anything related to patent eligibility. All it did is clean up the stuff on the sides. Should still be first to invent.

----------

I'm sure many people know. I would hope that _most_ people know, but I wouldn't bet too much money on it. (And how many is "most"? 51%? Quite possible. 99%? Don't think so. Seen on TV: Question: "How much is 20% of 100?" Answer: "5%". Many people are stupid. ). Anyway, it's not _all_ people.

The image of Apple is inextricably tied to the iPhone. For anyone who has seen their advertisements to think that anyone else makes the iPhone is unreasonable.

 

[KnightWRX]

Obama and the legislators that wrote that bill had no conception of fixing anything related to patent eligibility. All it did is clean up the stuff on the sides. Should still be first to invent.

Sure, but it pretty much removes the jury trial from the equation as people will opt for a panel of experts to review cases rather than jurors that aren't people informed in the art.

 

[LagunaSol]

BMW Wins Court Order to Ban Sales of Chinese X5 Clone in Germany

Ludicrous! BMW doesn't own a monopoly on four tires and a steering wheel!

/Samsung Fan Delusion Mode

 

[gnasher729]

Mass market viability is not something that defeats prior art though. Prior art, no matter if it wasn't viable in the market place still trumps patents granted without knowledge of this prior art and can be used to invalidate patents.

I am again confused by your lack of understanding of patents in general. The fact you claim clarity after being corrected is even more puzzling, it's as if you're refusing reality.

When you look at prior art, a patent is always granted for the difference between prior art and the patent claims. So as long as there is a difference that is inventive, the patent is valid. If the prior art is also patented, then the inventor of the new patent may not be free to use his own patent but may need to license the prior art patent as well; someone else may have to license both patents.

But important: Prior art doesn't in itself make a patent invalid. Only if it is so close that the difference between prior art and new invention isn't worth a patent anymore.

The image of Apple is inextricably tied to the iPhone. For anyone who has seen their advertisements to think that anyone makes the iPhone is unreasonable.

I have been asked "Do you know who makes the iPhone?" more than once.

Who makes Android phones? I know, and you know, and many people know, there is a long list of makers.
Who makes the iPhone? Since there is a long list of companies making Android phones, why wouldn't there be a long list of companies making iPhones? To know that there is only one manufacturer one would have to have considerable interest in the phone market. So even if grandma knows that Apple makes the iPhone (which she might not), that doesn't mean to her that Samsung doesn't make iPhones as well. If she sees a phone that looks like an iPhone, with "Samsung" written on it, she may very well think "it's an iPhone. I thought only Apple makes them, but apparently I was wrong".

 

[Melab]

Sure, but it pretty much removes the jury trial from the equation as people will opt for a panel of experts to review cases rather than jurors that aren't people informed in the art.

Really, it removes the option entirely or it adds a panel of experts because the former sounds unconstitutional?

 

[KnightWRX]

When you look at prior art, a patent is always granted for the difference between prior art and the patent claims.

That is for known prior art. The prior art cited by Samsung in the case and the unallowed prior art was not "known" by Apple, it was not included in the patent application.

That wasn't what the original poster I replied to was talking about either. He was saying that Apple being the first to market with a viable solution made it so Apple had an automatic right to a patent, regardless of any prior art out there, be it known or unknown.

Basically, you're just piling on some stuff in the discussion that isn't relevant. Please don't confuse things further for our poor friend who already seems to have a hard time grasping patents. Let's stick to the topic, the current lawsuit and the prior art in it.

 

[Melab]

When you look at prior art, a patent is always granted for the difference between prior art and the patent claims. So as long as there is a difference that is inventive, the patent is valid. If the prior art is also patented, then the inventor of the new patent may not be free to use his own patent but may need to license the prior art patent as well; someone else may have to license both patents.

But important: Prior art doesn't in itself make a patent invalid. Only if it is so close that the difference between prior art and new invention isn't worth a patent anymore.


Jo

I have been asked "Do you know who makes the iPhone?" more than once.

Who makes Android phones? I know, and you know, and many people know, there is a long list of makers.
Who makes the iPhone? Since there is a long list of companies making Android phones, why wouldn't there be a long list of companies making iPhones? To know that there is only one manufacturer one would have to have considerable interest in the phone market. So even if grandma knows that Apple makes the iPhone (which she might not), that doesn't mean to her that Samsung doesn't make iPhones as well. If she sees a phone that looks like an iPhone, with "Samsung" written on it, she may very well think "it's an iPhone. I thought only Apple makes them, but apparently I was wrong".

Because the brand name is only used by Apple.

 

[aristotle]

To those who are defending Samsung so vigorously, you apparently missed that the patent mentioned by the jury foreman was a SAMSUNG patent for taking a photo with a phone and emailing it.

So even if he was mistaken on his interpretation of prior art, it does not affect the judgement AGAINST Samsung for their violation of APPLE patents.

The most that could happen is Samsung could appeal to try and find Apple in infringement of that patent but it does not affect the judgements against them.

It is also possible that prior art could be used to invalidate Samsung's patent in a future trial so they might not want to risk pursuing it.

 

[LagunaSol]

Did Apple invent the smartphone? The capacitive touchscreen? Gestures?

No, no and no. Nor does anyone here claim they did. That doesn't permit a competitor to blatantly copy Apple's specific implementations/designs, a fact clearly evident to the jury but obviously elusive to a handful of commenters here.

 

[KnightWRX]

Really, it removes the option entirely or it adds a panel of experts because the former sounds unconstitutional?

This is all covered in my linked article. Why don't you read it since you seem eager to comment on it ?

----------

To those who are defending Samsung so vigorously, you apparently missed that the patent mentioned by the jury foreman was a SAMSUNG patent for taking a photo with a phone and emailing it.

So even if he was mistaken on his interpretation of prior art, it does not affect the judgement AGAINST Samsung for their violation of APPLE patents.

It's the very premise for invalidating prior art that is at question, not the patent that prompted it. Are you saying he used that excuse to invalid prior art for only the Samsung patent ?

Makes no sense. No one is defending Samsung either, drop the strawman already, this isn't black and white, we're finding issue with the foreman's comments and apparent lack of understanding of prior art rules and jury instruction.

 

[rjohnstone]

Really, it removes the option entirely or it adds a panel of experts because the former sounds unconstitutional?

Jury trials are not required by law or the constitution.
Trial by a jury is a right, not a requirement.
Any defendant has the right to forgo a jury trial altogether.

The new law gives the defendant the CHOICE as to how they want their case decided.
They can choose a traditional jury trial, a trial by a panel of experts or to simply have the judge rule on the matter directly.

 

[KnightWRX]

Jury trials are not required by law or the constitution.
Trial by a jury is a right, not a requirement.

Except in criminal cases under the 6th amendment, but that doesn't quite apply here so no need to discuss it further.

 

[Melab]

This is all covered in my linked article. Why don't you read it since you seem eager to comment on it ?

----------



It's the very premise for invalidating prior art that is at question, not the patent that prompted it. Are you saying he used that excuse to invalid prior art for only the Samsung patent ?

Makes no sense. No one is defending Samsung either, drop the strawman already, this isn't black and white, we're finding issue with the foreman's comments and apparent lack of understanding of prior art rules and jury instruction.

Oops, I didn't see the link.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's the very premise for invalidating prior art that is at question, not the patent that prompted it.

Except in the case of the patent being described, the patent was ruled to not be infringed. Exactly the opposite of your argument.

Are you saying he used that excuse to invalid prior art for only the Samsung patent ?

We do not have evidence either way.

Personally, I think the foreman simply mispoke in an interview on live TV. Either about the patent in question or the role of the prior art.

 

[samcraig]

To those who are defending Samsung so vigorously, you apparently missed that the patent mentioned by the jury foreman was a SAMSUNG patent for taking a photo with a phone and emailing it.

So even if he was mistaken on his interpretation of prior art, it does not affect the judgement AGAINST Samsung for their violation of APPLE patents.

The most that could happen is Samsung could appeal to try and find Apple in infringement of that patent but it does not affect the judgements against them.

It is also possible that prior art could be used to invalidate Samsung's patent in a future trial so they might not want to risk pursuing it.

First - you're mistaking having a discussion about the validity of the verdict with defending Samsung. Just because someone either doesn't agree with the verdict or comments on the procedure by which the verdict was arrived doesn't make them a Samsung defendant.

Second your point is irrelevant - and it's clear you aren't reading the thread before posting because a few people including myself have already replied to this line of thinking. If the foreman used this AHA moment to judge all the patents in the case - then it's flawed across the board. It doesn't matter that his initial AHA moment was based on a Samsung patent.

----------

Except in the case of the patent being described, the patent was ruled to not be infringed. Exactly the opposite of your argument.



We do not have evidence either way.

Personally, I think the foreman simply mispoke in an interview on live TV. Either about the patent in question or the role of the prior art.

True. There's no evidence except his quote. But it's certainly enough to raise reasonable doubt as to what occurred in the jury room and that's what's being commented on.

No doubt if the situation were reversed, many people on here would be having the same discussion.

 

[Melab]

To those who are defending Samsung so vigorously, you apparently missed that the patent mentioned by the jury foreman was a SAMSUNG patent for taking a photo with a phone and emailing it.

So even if he was mistaken on his interpretation of prior art, it does not affect the judgement AGAINST Samsung for their violation of APPLE patents.

The most that could happen is Samsung could appeal to try and find Apple in infringement of that patent but it does not affect the judgements against them.

It is also possible that prior art could be used to invalidate Samsung's patent in a future trial so they might not want to risk pursuing it.

Just as prior art and future arguments could potentially wind up invalidating Apple's patent(s).

 

[BaldiMac]

4Second your point is irrelevant - and it's clear you aren't reading the thread before posting because a few people including myself have already replied to this line of thinking. If the foreman used this AHA moment to judge all the patents in the case - then it's flawed across the board. It doesn't matter that his initial AHA moment was based on a Samsung patent.

You are assuming that the AHA moment is specifically about the CPU compatibility. There is no reason to assume that. The processor compatibility statement was made in response to a question about their "initial stalemate" which the foreman replied "was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent."

 

[rjohnstone]

Except in criminal cases under the 6th amendment, but that doesn't quite apply here so no need to discuss it further.

Nope.
Not a requirement... it's a right.
Jury trials are a right granted under the 6th amendment, but as with all rights, a person can choose to forgo a trial by jury at any time... even in criminal cases.

Just like the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms, no one is required to carry a gun. They have a choice.

Back on topic...

 

[samcraig]

You are assuming that the AHA moment is specifically about the CPU compatibility. There is no reason to assume that. The processor compatibility statement was made in response to a question about their "initial stalemate" which the foreman replied "was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent."

As you said - we only have his words. And that raised doubt. Maybe not for you. But other people including myself. I honestly have no idea what he MEANT or in what context. But for me - it raises doubt.

 

[BaldiMac]

True. There's no evidence except his quote. But it's certainly enough to raise reasonable doubt as to what occurred in the jury room and that's what's being commented on.

What reasonable doubt? Assuming he didn't mispeak, the jury interpreted it in exactly the way that you and KnightWRX think it should be interpreted.