Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[Mark Booth]

NOT IF MICROSOFT PATENTED IT FIRST.

It's who gets to the PTO first, now who did it first.

You obviously don't understand how the patent system works. Just because Microsoft might get there first, doesn't mean Microsoft would get the patent.

But you're right. Moot point.

Mark

 

[GadgetDon]

Let me ask you a question. What if Microsoft had patented cut and paste so that no other software could use that feature apart from Microsoft products. Do you think the software we all use today on our Apple products would be better or worse?

Cut and paste is obviously a unique and clearly definable process so it would have been patentable by today's standards had someone realised at the time how much money they could have made from patenting it.

Actually, Apple was the first OS to support cut and paste (on the Lisa).

I'd happily agree to a deal that software patents should be treated differently than hardware patents. Shorten the duration to 7 years (I'd say 5, but lawmakers for some reason seem to like the number 7), mandate licensing at a reasonable fee (and yes I know how hard defining "reasonable" would be). I'd also be happy to have higher levels of mandatory specificity, scope, and originality.

But I reject the notion that method that happens in code is unprotectable.

 

[linkgx1]

You obviously don't understand how the patent system works. Just because Microsoft might get there first, doesn't mean Microsoft would get the patent.

But you're right. Moot point.

Mark

I'm so confused right now.

 

[69650]

Actually, Apple was the first OS to support cut and paste (on the Lisa).

I'd happily agree to a deal that software patents should be treated differently than hardware patents. Shorten the duration to 7 years (I'd say 5, but lawmakers for some reason seem to like the number 7), mandate licensing at a reasonable fee (and yes I know how hard defining "reasonable" would be). I'd also be happy to have higher levels of mandatory specificity, scope, and originality.

But I reject the notion that method that happens in code is unprotectable.

I notice that you didn't answer the question either lol. It's very simple if whoever invented cut and paste had patented it and not licenced it to anyone else so nobody else could use it apart from them as they are perfectly entitled to do would the software we all use today be better or worse? It's a simple enough question.

 

[GadgetDon]

I notice that you didn't answer the question either lol. It's very simple if whoever invented cut and paste had patented it and not licenced it to anyone else so nobody else could use it apart from them as they are perfectly entitled to do would the software we all use today be better or worse? It's a simple enough question.

Probably worse off, unless is pushed someone to create a better metaphor or implement it in another way. And if Steve Jobs had challenged Bill Gates to a duel at dawn and shot him over the stealing of Windows would we be better or worse off?

 

[linkgx1]

Probably worse off, unless is pushed someone to create a better metaphor or implement it in another way. And if Steve Jobs had challenged Bill Gates to a duel at dawn and shot him over the stealing of Windows would we be better or worse off?

We no longer have gentlemen these days...so 19th century. THE WOULD NOT HAVE A DUEL.

UNTIL THE DAY we can wear top hats again..there is no duel.

 

[69650]

You obviously don't understand how the patent system works. Just because Microsoft might get there first, doesn't mean Microsoft would get the patent.

Neither do you by the sounds of it. AFAIK Whoever submits the patent application first gets the patent unless someone else can prove prior art or some other reason why it should not be granted. It's first come first served.

 

[GadgetDon]

Neither do you by the sounds of it. AFAIK Whoever submits the patent application first gets the patent unless someone else can prove prior art or some other reason why it should not be granted. It's first come first served.

No, you are wrong. The standard is first invented, at least for now. If Microsoft applies, Apple says "wait, see, we did it first" and that kills it. I'll grant that one of our weaknesses is that we don't have enough checking for prior art in the patent approval process.

 

[69650]

Probably worse off, unless is pushed someone to create a better metaphor or implement it in another way. And if Steve Jobs had challenged Bill Gates to a duel at dawn and shot him over the stealing of Windows would we be better or worse off?

Love him or hate him I think Bill Gates and Microsoft have done a lot to bring computing to the average person. Apple computers have always been for the wealthy and so would never have had the same affect on the world.

Also given the amount of money Bill Gates and his foundation has given to fight killer diseases in Africa I think millions of people would be dead today without him and his generosity. Now that's what I would call changing the world.

----------

No, you are wrong. The standard is first invented, at least for now. If Microsoft applies, Apple says "wait, see, we did it first" and that kills it. I'll grant that one of our weaknesses is that we don't have enough checking for prior art in the patent approval process.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[GadgetDon]

Hey, I've lost count. Has anyone made a new point in the last five pages, or are we all just repeating our talking points to each other?

 

[linkgx1]

Hey, I've lost count. Has anyone made a new point in the last five pages, or are we all just repeating our talking points to each other?

Nope.

But here's something for thought. If the decision was reverse, would most people defend these points? And what if the Supreme court overturns what the jurors have done?

 

[69650]

Probably worse off, unless is pushed someone to create a better metaphor or implement it in another way. And if Steve Jobs had challenged Bill Gates to a duel at dawn and shot him over the stealing of Windows would we be better or worse off?

Exactly now apply that logic to all the other basic software features/tools that we all take for granted and imagine how very different software would look today without them. Imagine if Sir Tim Berners-Lee had patented the world wide web he invented and everyone in the world had to pay a royalty for every web page they created.

 

[GadgetDon]

Nope.

But here's something for thought. If the decision was reverse, would most people defend these points? And what if the Supreme court overturns what the jurors have done?

You mean, if Samsung had released a phone that had changed everything and Apple made a phone matching most of the features and look?

Yeah, I'd make the same points. But I'd be doing it in very bad English because we'd be on Bizarro World.

And if the Supreme Court overturns the utility patents - I'd want to know the reasoning. If there is sufficient prior art to invalidate, prior art just like it rather than "squint real hard and it sorta kinda is there", I'd say the court was right. If they say "we've decided software is no longer patentable", I think I would say that's wrong, but I put the probability of that something on a par with everyone on the court switching views on Abortion.

----------

Exactly now apply that logic to all the other basic software features/tools that we all take for granted and imagine how very different software would look today without them. Imagine if Sir Tim Berners-Lee had patented the world wide web he invented and everyone in the world had to pay a royalty for every web page they created.

And imagine if the wheel had been patented and couldn't be used in anything else, and imagine if the first gas pump had been patented and required a license of one million dollars for any other gas pump, and ...

 

[boronathan]

Nope.

But here's something for thought. If the decision was reverse, would most people defend these points? And what if the Supreme court overturns what the jurors have done?

If the situation was switched, and apple copied Samsung on such an obvious way, I'd side with Samsung. You don't spend millions of dollars just to have someone sweep in copy what you did.

If the supreme court overturns the jurors, i will agree with the supreme court. I'm not one for conspiracy theories about biased judges, tainted jurors and the fixes being in.

 

[linkgx1]

You mean, if Samsung had released a phone that had changed everything and Apple made a phone matching most of the features and look?

Yeah, I'd make the same points. But I'd be doing it in very bad English because we'd be on Bizarro World.

And if the Supreme Court overturns the utility patents - I'd want to know the reasoning. If there is sufficient prior art to invalidate, prior art just like it rather than "squint real hard and it sorta kinda is there", I'd say the court was right. If they say "we've decided software is no longer patentable", I think I would say that's wrong, but I put the probability of that something on a par with everyone on the court switching views on Abortion.

"They evolved their views"


But would the reason matter? I mean, at this point if Samsung made a good argument and it was "overturned" wouldn't that be fair? Black and white?


The thing I find weird in this case is how people are responding with a "justice is served" mentality, but not looking at everything at a whole. It's kinda of scary to think "just because a court said so" that it's suddenly right.

And courts keep changing their minds all the time.

----------

If the situation was switched, and apple copied Samsung on such an obvious way, I'd side with Samsung. You don't spend millions of dollars just to have someone sweep in copy what you did.

If the supreme court overturns the jurors, i will agree with the supreme court. I'm not one for conspiracy theories about biased judges, tainted jurors and the fixes being in.

Wait..you'd agree with whoever 'won'?

 

[69650]

You mean, if Samsung had released a phone that had changed everything and Apple made a phone matching most of the features and look?

I agree the original iPhone changed things - in 2007. That was five years ago. And they are still pursuing patents from then rather than inventing new stuff to amaze us and keep one step ahead of the competition. Really what have they revolutionised since then? The iPhone is pretty much the same today as it was back in 2007 apart from faster processors and all that and they were as a result of advances by components manufacturers rather by Apple itself.

 

[GadgetDon]

"They evolved their views"


But would the reason matter? I mean, at this point if Samsung made a good argument and it was "overturned" wouldn't that be fair? Black and white?


The thing I find weird in this case is how people are responding with a "justice is served" mentality, but not looking at everything at a whole. It's kinda of scary to think "just because a court said so" that it's suddenly right.

And courts keep changing their minds all the time.

I've been trying not to. I've been clear that I'm not a fan of the trade dress crap, and should the supreme court say "OK, trade dress and design is not a legitimate use of the patent process" I'll say hooray (probably - if those came from the USPTO extending the concept of patents, the Supreme Court has the right to limit it, but if it came from a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, would want to see the constitutional issues they cite to invalidate the law, and I honestly don't know which it is).

And as for "because the court said so" - I've sat on a jury (one advantage of being an old fart, you can say "I've done this" to a lot of stuff), and I've got a lot of respect for the work juries do and developed a deep suspicion of second guessing from the cheap seats.

 

[GadgetDon]

I agree the original iPhone changed things - in 2007. That was five years ago. And they are still pursuing patents from then rather than inventing new stuff to amaze us and keep one step ahead of the competition. Really what have they revolutionised since then? The iPhone is pretty much the same today as it was back in 2007 apart from faster processors and all that and they were as a result of advances by components manufacturers rather by Apple itself.

You do know that Apple has been designing its own processors, right?

And real innovation, even in UI, takes time. I've given too metaphors for how things aren't instant, the Athena or the Frankenstein metaphor, take your pick. I'm sure Apple is working on new stuff. And it'll be stuff they think really improves it, rather than features for features sake (you'll never see fins added to an Apple device to become This Year's Model) (old car joke).

 

[Mark Booth]

Neither do you by the sounds of it. AFAIK Whoever submits the patent application first gets the patent unless someone else can prove prior art or some other reason why it should not be granted. It's first come first served.

And in your hypothetical scenario, Apple could prove prior implementation!

Mark

 

[coolguy$$$]

Whole story in one picture...

 

[rjohnstone]

No, you are wrong. The standard is first invented, at least for now. If Microsoft applies, Apple says "wait, see, we did it first" and that kills it. I'll grant that one of our weaknesses is that we don't have enough checking for prior art in the patent approval process.

In the US it's first to file.
It's up to the challenger to prove in court that they were first.
Then a judge or jury decides if the challenger's argument is valid or that both are invalid and nullifies the patent all together.

And of course as we saw with Apple v. Samsung, sometimes the jury gets it wrong and ignores evidence or fails to understand the conditions in which they are to base their decision on.

 

[GadgetDon]

And of course as we saw with Apple v. Samsung, sometimes the jury gets it wrong and ignores evidence or fails to understand the conditions in which they are to base their decision on.

You do realize we've been hashing and rehasing the argument of whether the jury got it wrong in the last 25 pages, so stating it as an absolute fact isn't going to convince anyone.

 

[tigres]

Great interview with the Jury foremen on Bloomberg...
Seems like a reasonable man to me.


http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-jury-foreman-here-s-how-we-reached-a-verdict-RqtqHC25QbOBFg7xrWa5Wg.html

 

[Taz Mangus]

Asked if the jury realised the ramifications of their decision, Ilagan said they did:

"I realised that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones. But I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance.... Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/378000/20120828/apple-samsung-verdict-fallout.htm

I am sure a bank robber would be upset too if they got caught in the act of robbing a bank.

 

[boronathan]

Asked if the jury realised the ramifications of their decision, Ilagan said they did:

"I realised that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones. But I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance.... Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/378000/20120828/apple-samsung-verdict-fallout.htm

I am sure a bank robber would be upset too if they got caught in the act of robbing a bank.

I'm sure some here won't read this because it doesn't mesh with their assumption that the jurors are incompetent and that's why apple won.

When kdarling posted the professions and qualifications of some of the jurors i knew they were a smart bunch. Yet, we've still got ppl saying they rushed through and made the wrong decision.