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

[rjohnstone]

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."

The argument that he was using the CPU as his compatibility test only for the Samsung 460 patent is flawed because the 460 patent makes no claim to CPU architecture required to execute the function.
The function in question in the 460 patent... "method of transmitting emails, with and without embedded images, from mobile phone with built-in camera.", describes a function performed on a phone.
Both Samsung's and Apple's phones use ARM based CPU's, so again, his argument is incorrect.

 

[BaldiMac]

The argument that he was using the CPU as his compatibility test only for the Samsung 460 patent is flawed because the 460 patent makes no claim to CPU architecture required to execute the function.
The function in question in the 460 patent... "method of transmitting emails, with and without embedded images, from mobile phone with built-in camera.", describes a function performed on a phone.
Both Samsung's and Apple's phones use ARM based CPU's, so again, his argument is incorrect.

As I said, I think he simply misspoke in a live interview.

 

[samcraig]

As I said, I think he simply misspoke in a live interview.

Sincerely not trying to start something. Why is it ok for you to make assumptions but not me. Because based on a previous post you seem to be indicating that I shouldn't. And here you are making an assumption.

 

[AppleMark]

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.

I could be as obnoxious if I tried really hard and respond in kind to the way you do to posters.

However, nowhere in my posts have I stated that Apple has an automatic right to the patents because they were first to market, do not put words in my mouth.

The points I am making is one of general fact. Apple HAS certain recognised patents for it's products under law (bleating on about Apples right to them is moot), which include many technologies Apple did not invent - so what?. However this is all irrelevant. It is reasonable to think that anybody bringing a complete solution to market which is not found to be in violation of patents (Apple in this case), be able to contest subsequent cloning.

Fact is Apple has successfully defended it's right to protect them as an implemented final product, for which Samsung has infringed, by almost literally cloning it's products. Are you saying that Samsung has the right to copy Apple products so closely in the way that it has? Because that is not what the jury thought.

What is it I am actually missing?

Sorry, but the thread is not entitled "Prior art lets stick to it" and you did not start it.

Have a nice day!

 

[BaldiMac]

Sincerely not trying to start something. Why is it ok for you to make assumptions but not me. Because based on a previous post you seem to be indicating that I shouldn't. And here you are making an assumption.

I don't know how to answer that question without getting into a semantic argument about the word "assumption" and the difference between assumptions based on evidence and assumptions based on pre-determined conclusions.

Can we just discuss the claim?

Where is your doubt coming from? KnightWRX's argument, that you seem to agree with, has been that the prior art should not be invalidated simply because the solution does not run on the same processor. In the case of the '460 patent, the patent was found not to be infringed. That is completely consistent with what KnightWRX was arguing.

 

[samcraig]

Where is your doubt coming from? KnightWRX's argument, that you seem to agree with, has been that the prior art should not be invalidated simply because the solution does not run on the same processor. In the case of the '460 patent, the patent was found not to be infringed. That is completely consistent with what KnightWRX was arguing.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15551829/

 

[BaldiMac]

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15551829/

Exactly my point! When KnightWRX thought that the patent that the foreman was discussing was Apple's, his argument was that the prior art should not be invalidated based on the processor compatibility.

Therefore, the patent should not be ruled to have been infringed. However, that's exactly what happened. The patent (which was actually Samsung's) was ruled to have not been infringed, just as KnightWRX argued for.

 

[samcraig]

Exactly my point! When KnightWRX thought that the patent that the foreman was discussing was Apple's, his argument was that the prior art should not be invalidated based on the processor compatibility.

Therefore, the patent should not be ruled to have been infringed. However, that's exactly what happened. The patent (which was actually Samsung's) was ruled to have not been infringed, just as KnightWRX argued for.

Whether he misspoke or what exact "story" he relayed to the jury to make them understand is unknown. Regardless of KnightWRX's argument. And for me that raises doubt. And quite bluntly - whether or not (and on what basis) I have doubts in my head is up to me. Right? If you don't have doubts - great. If you do have doubts - great.

On a completely personal note - the foreman (and I understand how much the media must want to talk to him) comes off to me as someone who enjoys showing just how smart and in charge he is/was.

 

[aristotle]

Here is the issue with Samsung's patent. It is essentially "building on giants" that came before. Taking an electronic photo is not unique to Samsung nor is emailing a photo. If the CPU is irrelevant then so is the platform or form factor.

There is a lot of prior art with regard to a digital camera taking a photo, that photo being attached to an email on a desktop client and transmitted to the internet. You Samsung defenders cannot have it both ways. Samsung is describing a process which can be carried out on a desktop or laptop in addition to a phone and is a function of the email client which can be implemented on various types of devices and not just a phone.

With a pinch to zoom or the bounce back patent, not only is the UI interaction specific to a mobile device but it requires a capacitive touch screen to execute and the UI elements are described in the patent itself.

 

[BaldiMac]

Regardless of KnightWRX's argument.

So... your doubts were based on KnightWRX's argument, but the fact that his argument was wrong doesn't change anything. Strange.

And quite bluntly - whether or not (and on what basis) I have doubts in my head is up to me. Right? If you don't have doubts - great. If you do have doubts - great.

Since you initially referenced "reasonable doubt", I thought we were discussing this from a legal perspective. Silly me.

 

[tbrinkma]

Exactly, there are two different standards of proof. Let's say our cars collide. In a criminal case, there is quite possibly not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was my fault, and not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was your fault. In a civil case, one of us must be liable. The judge must decide for one side or for the other side.

I'll nit-pick again, and point out that it is *entirely* possible for neither (or both) parties to be at fault in an accident.

 

[BaldiMac]

Here is the issue with Samsung's patent. It is essentially "building on giants" that came before. Taking an electronic photo is not unique to Samsung nor is emailing a photo. If the CPU is irrelevant then so is the platform or form factor.

There is a lot of prior art with regard to a digital camera taking a photo, that photo being attached to an email on a desktop client and transmitted to the internet. You Samsung defenders cannot have it both ways. Samsung is describing a process which can be carried out on a desktop or laptop in addition to a phone and is a function of the email client which can be implemented on various types of devices and not just a phone.

With a pinch to zoom or the bounce back patent, not only is the UI interaction specific to a mobile device but it requires a capacitive touch screen to execute and the UI elements are described in the patent itself.

The general argument is that Apple's claims are all "crapents" that should never have been granted. The opposing parties claims are also "crapents", but Apple deserves to have them enforced against them because Apple started it.

 

[samcraig]

Bounce back isn't limited to a mobile device. Laptops have scroll pads and have for years. Computers have had tablets (wacom for example) for years. Further - if you have a scroll wheel mouse and give it a good flick, you'd would have a need for a bounce back.

With a pinch to zoom or the bounce back patent, not only is the UI interaction specific to a mobile device but it requires a capacitive touch screen to execute and the UI elements are described in the patent itself.

No. I have doubts based on more that Knight's assertions. Excuse me for shorthanding.

So... your doubts were based on KnightWRX's argument, but the fact that his argument was wrong doesn't change anything. Strange.

Since you initially referenced "reasonable doubt", I thought we were discussing this from a legal perspective. Silly me.

No I wrote reasonable doubt I meant just that - not in the legal sense. Silly you, yes. But I suppose my word choice in a thread which everyone is throwing around legalese, should have been phrased differently.

 

[tbrinkma]

Yes it is a sad system.
The time you will need to educate 12 uninformed people in this kind of a trail, in order for them to make educated decision, is years, no lawyer on earth can do that.

You don't need to teach someone how to run a business around selling, or even design and build electronics in order to educate them well enough about the particulars which relate to the case.

Those people while on 'duty' want to go home, they don't care about Samsung or apple ( and this is a good interesting case, imagine what happen in murder trail when some unknown bum kill some other guy, why they should give any damn on that??)

So, should we have expert murderers acting as the jury in a murder case? I'm really not sure where else your logic could be going.

Unbiased?? You kidding me, as far as I recall the trail was in US no? That already 12 biased people, how many Koreans set in the jury place?
I bet this kind of trail was a bit different if all the 12 people where from Korea...wouldn't you agree?

Ok, first we'll deal with a bit of basic ignorance on your part.
1) It was a jury of 9 people, not 12.
2) Of course the jury is going to consist of Americans, it was a trial in an American court, based on American laws.
3) The *judge* was of Korean descent. You've never seen me complain about that, because it has no bearing on the case.

I believe that a well educated judges, who are not tricked easy, to some emotional manipulation, who are well trained and got knowledge in this field and judged in many trails like that, are MUCH better than 12 random people from the street.

That's why we have well educated judges overseeing the process. It's also why we don't have juries consisting of a single, *lone* individual. Our jury system is based on the (well proven) concept that different people will notice, and give differing importance to different details and connections. Having a group to discuss and debate those details and connections provides the best way to ensure that nothing gets glossed over. (Having the group stay reasonably small, as our jury system does, helps prevent committee-deadlock.)

 

[Renzatic]

The general argument is that Apple's claims are all "crapents" that should never have been granted. The opposing parties claims are also "crapents", but Apple deserves to have them enforced against them because Apple started it.

No, the general argument is that the entire patent war scenario is a complete waste of time that benefits no one in the long term.

It's not about "protecting innovations". It's a convoluted scheme for companies to bleed other companies of money, or curtail competition over minute features that shouldn't have been patented to begin with.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, the general argument is that the entire patent war scenario is a complete waste of time that benefits no one in the long term.

It's not about "protecting innovations". It's a convoluted scheme for companies to bleed other companies of money, or curtail competition over minute features that shouldn't have been patented to begin with.

That's even more well thought out.

 

[tbrinkma]

Do not agree with this wording - it takes someone with a strong personality and power of persuasion. Clear, rational and informed aren't essential (see the O.J. verdict).

Yes, a strong personality with the power of persuasion can do it. So can a rational and convincing argument. Sometimes it's even *both*!

The amount of time spent in deliberation seems to me to be a fraction of what it should have been to given 700 different items careful attention.

Sure, they could have spent more time on it. But it's not like all those items were actually completely independent of one another, and the process described is actually a very efficient one. You avoid getting bogged down, get the easy to answer, clear stuff taken care of, and in the process learn more about the related issues in the other aspects of the case. That helps you when you come back to the more complex issues that you had gotten stuck on earlier.

Had they insisted on answering each question in the order it was presented in the sheet before moving on to the next, they'd probably still be in deliberation. But, that doesn't mean they did it wrong, or didn't debate enough. It just means they chose a more efficient method.

Why is it that if people don't agree with the decision that they are jumped on as Samsung fanboys? All my computers and phones are Apple, I have never owned a Samsung phone and I am not real comfortable with this verdict.

No idea. I'd have to guess it has to do with some deep seated insecurity somewhere, but that's just a guess. (I suspect it very similar to why people who *do* agree with the decision, or at least don't object to it, are assumed to be Apple fanboys.)

 

[Oletros]

With a pinch to zoom or the bounce back patent, not only is the UI interaction specific to a mobile device but it requires a capacitive touch screen to execute and the UI elements are described in the patent itself.

Pinch to zoom or bounce back doesn't need a mobile device or a capacitive screen to be performed

 

[Renzatic]

So, should we have expert murderers acting as the jury in a murder case? I'm really not sure where else your logic could be going.

It's a technical issues versus a social one. Just about everyone understands the concepts involved in a murder case. A person's motive, the opportunity, the means, the he said she said aspect of it. No one is asked to swim beyond their depth. Complicated as a murder might be, the jury is usually a little more well equipped to judge it.

Not so with a technical case like this one. Patents in general are complicated as hell. Specially these days, where the difference between infringement and non-infringement is simply where you place your finger. It requires a goodly bit of knowledge of the system to really make a sound judgement. Knowledge that a jury pulled from the population likely doesn't have.

It's like asking 9 random people, consisting of nurses, paralegals, construction workers, and lawyers to come in and judge the quality of nuclear reactors, with the caveat that all future reactors will be built according to the outcome of this contest.

"...well, that one has shinier pipes, so I guess it's the better one".

 

[subsonix]

Bounce back isn't limited to a mobile device. Laptops have scroll pads and have for years. Computers have had tablets (wacom for example) for years. Further - if you have a scroll wheel mouse and give it a good flick, you'd would have a need for a bounce back.

A tablet is a mobile device. And the bounce back solves two problems related to touch screen interactions described by the expert witness during the trial. A mouse scroll wheel or laptop scroll pad would definitely not be covered.

 

[samcraig]

A tablet is a mobile device. And the bounce back solves two problems related to touch screen interactions described by the expert witness during the trial. A mouse scroll wheel would definitely not be covered.

a wacom tablet and the like which artists have been using for years hooked up to a DESKTOP doesn't require mobile computing. You know the term tablet hasn't always meant iPad, right? Nor has it always meant a portable computer with a screen.

 

[subsonix]

a wacom tablet and the like which artists have been using for years hooked up to a DESKTOP doesn't require mobile computing. You know the term tablet hasn't always meant iPad, right? Nor has it always meant a portable computer with a screen.

To be fair you said: a tablet (wacom for example), so.. Any way with that out of the way, it wouldn't be affected either then.

 

[samcraig]

To be fair you said: a tablet (wacom for example), so..

right. So why did you assume I meant tablet as in iPad or it's competition?

I gave WACOM as an example. I even said "Computers have had tablets." How would me saying that last part remotely indicate I meant anything having to do with mobile computing?

 

[Oletros]

To be fair you said: a tablet (wacom for example), so..

Yes, he has used the right term, a wacom tablet is not a mobile device

 

[subsonix]

right. So why did you assume I meant tablet as in iPad or it's competition?

I gave WACOM as an example. I even said "Computers have had tablets." How would me saying that last part remotely indicate I meant anything having to do with mobile computing?

Yes sam that was what I thought, but should we continue to discuss this this misunderstanding or the matter of fact?

----------

Yes, he has used the right term, a wacom tablet is not a mobile device

I understand... Let's dedicate a completely new thread, and debate this misunderstanding shall we? No that would be silly.