13 ms·

Apple v. Samsung juror: we “wanted to send a message”

43 points by iProject 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago
It seems the whole jury quickly became biased towards the "patent holder" (whichever patent that may be) "thanks" to Hogan, not to mention they didn't even bother to consider prior art or to invalidate Apple's patents, which was a huge thing to consider, but they acted as if it wasn't. Just because a patent was afforded doesn't mean it was a good one. I'm not too familiar with how juries work in US, but the whole thing doesn't seem right to me. The jury should've been completely impartial.
- paul9290 14y ago
  Did you see how Samsung emails noting Samsung was told by Google to back off from copying Apple and they didnt is what persuaded their decision?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- taligent 14y ago
  You don't know how juries work but yet according to you they weren't impartial. Can't fault that logic.
mrcharles 14y ago
As if pinch to zoom couldn't be suggested by a ten year old when presented with the problem of zooming on a multi-touch interface. Software patents are a joke.
- pxlpshr 14y ago
  People hate on software patents like they were hating on the cellphone industry just 5 years ago. One company doubled down on their innovation while disrupting their own major revenue channel. Meanwhile, the many stagnant phone manufactures continued copy/pasting crap because that's all they knew. BlackBerry executives went so far as to call Jobs' 2007 iPhone launch a "bluff" and an "impossible feat of engineering". Maybe multi-touch is painfully obvious on the surface, but end-to-end execution and total consumer package made the iPhone what it is today -- and that wasn't obvious until you held it in your hand, and everything just clicked. So in that regard, I think it's fair for Apple to protect their entire pie by defending the slices/key ingredients. PS. It took a few years before "pinch and zoom" was actually comparable to the fluidity of iOS. Some implementations on Android were a complete joke. PPS. I don't disagree that the patent process could use some revisions, but to dismiss the process entirely is just silly -- including software.
  - watty 14y ago
    I agree it's the end-to-end execution that made the iPhone a success. But Samsung had a completely different end-to-end execution, right? I agree with being able to sue for a complete copy of end-to-end, or even an attempt to. I just didn't see it in this case, especially with all the prior art. I don't understand the recipe analogy, to me it's like Bush's Beans suing another bean company for the inclusion of cocoa in the recipe. I'm baffled that you feel pinch to zoom should be patentable.
    - taligent 14y ago
      No. That's the point of the case. Samsung DIDN'T have a completely different end to end execution. It was a blatant copy from the packaging, hardware design, software UI elements, connectors etc. And Samsung had documents demonstrating this. Microsoft and Palm are examples of unique end to end execution.
  - fluidcruft 14y ago
    I certainly hope that patents aren't intended to protect realizing that something has economic value. I personally hold "This is an obvious way to do this" and "I can make a lot of money if I do this" to be nearly orthogonal. I'm a little tired of people claiming Apple deserves government protection because they discovered a market.
  - dsr_ 14y ago
    People were right to hate the cellphone industry 5 years ago. The best things available were Nokia candybar phones -- approaching the Ford Escort in terms of reliability -- and the Palm Treo, which was more or less the apex of combining a PDA with a phone without actually doing much integration. People are currently right to hate cellphone service providers. As later history would reveal, BlackBerry executives were entirely correct to consider the iPhone an "impossible feat of engineering" -- from their point of view. RIM had huge market share, yet couldn't engineer its way out of a stapled paper bag.
    - beedogs 14y ago
- bitsoda 14y ago
  Apparently it wasn't so obvious in 2007 when all the handset makers scoffed at the iPhone.
  - untog 14y ago
    I don't think anyone was scoffing because of pinch-to-zoom, though.
  - mrcharles 14y ago
    Pretty sure the big deal, if you break it down to component parts, was actually having a capacitive touch screen rather than resistive. Fingers instead of styluses opened a whole new world of phone interactions. If they had patents on multitouch hardware itself, power to them. But software patents? Meh.
    - JoelSutherland 14y ago
      Pinch and zoom in 2001 on a capacitive screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s This was presented in the case. Apple argued it didn't represent prior art because: 1. The screen was a projector and therefor this showed two devices. (Capacitive CRTs have excited since the 80s) 2. Samsung didn't present the code for this implementation in time, so it could not be proved that this was either object oriented or event-based. So Apple's non-obvious extension of prior art was to 1. do this exact thing on a non-projector device, 2. use event-based code.
      - mrcharles 14y ago
        So, basic software development on new hardware. Gotcha.
  - Kylekramer 14y ago
    Isn't scoffing at a new competitor just going through the motions required of you? No one is going to say "darn they beat us to it" to the press.
sp332 14y ago
As Groklaw pointed out, the jury was specifically instructed that the damages awarded should reflect the amount of money lost, not punish or "send a message" to Samsung. It's also pretty clear that the jury rushed through things, even if they say they didn't. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430341 Samsung will probably use the jurors' statements in their appeal.
- papercrane 14y ago
  Samsung will probably use the jurors' statements in their appeal. I don't think Samsung can. It is being reported that Federal rules don't allow them to consider jurors statements about the proceedings as evidence.
- Retric 14y ago
  They spend 2 and 1/2 days talking about it. Don't forget they had plenty of time to consider the evidence while it was being presented so the only thing they need to talk about was what they disagreed on. Which probably was mostly about how willful Samsung's infringement was, because that's the hardest thing to determine in cases like this.
  - sp332 14y ago
    The 100+ pages of jury instructions were only provided on the 21st. Aside from their own comments that they "didn't need the jury instructions", there is this follow-up that shows a lot of inconsistencies in the verdict. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 edited
    - ryanhuff 14y ago
      These jury instructions were not 100+ pages of narrative. They were mostly "check the box" questions. I don't know if it's unreasonable to go through them in a few days if you already had a general feeling that Samsung had done wrong.
doktrin 14y ago
>> we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amount of which has yet to be decided. Maximum punitive damages are limited to 3x the original amount [1 billion], so the fact that this number was apparently inflated is non-trivial. [1] >> "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things." This juror clearly skirted the line of impartiality. I will have to read the whole interview. The notion of vigilante jurors doling out punishment based on their own bias is unsettling. As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. [1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billion-verdict.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billi...
- mrich 14y ago
  > As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. I think it has become clear now :)
- cremnob 14y ago
  All the parties involved are aware what a risk jury trials can be. It's why many companies settle, and Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate. They made their bed as far as I'm concerned. I do have a problem with the jury being criticized though. This happens in all high-profile cases where some group of people dislike the decision. Judges are very protective of juries for this reason.
  - binxbolling 14y ago
    In my opinion, if you start speaking to the press, it's fair game for the public to criticize. You don't want to be knocked for a controversial decision? Don't go blabbing on record.
  - vacri 14y ago
    When the jury indicate that they didn't read the jury instructions and consequently did things that they were not meant to do, it's completely fair for them to be criticised. Hell, if anyone else in the courtroom did something of a similar nature, it'd be a mistrial, so how is that an overlookable offense?
WildUtah 14y ago
It's amazing that no matter how much you pay lawyers, they can be this incompetent. First they somehow never managed to get the patent review process going that Google proved could wipe out bogus trivial patents. Then Samsung's legal team missed deadlines to produce their prior art research. Then they stuffed the arguments about tablet computer trade dress into the largest part of their time and won that but failed to save time to make a case about smart phones. And most importantly, they let an obviously biased holder of silly patents who feels great pride in them get on the jury and lead it straight to this conclusion as foreman. Did they sleep through voir dire? Did the Samsung lawyers deliberately throw the case for some reason? Maybe the Korean corporate culture rubbed them the wrong way and they simply couldn't communicate effectively or they were hit with an epidemic of contagious chronic fatigue or something.
- davedx 14y ago
  In my experience, this is fairly standard for lawyers. Sometimes they are all too human. The problem is the consequences of their occasional (YMMV) incompetence can be so huge and far-reaching, as with this case.
- paul9290 14y ago
  It looks like they felt the most damning evidence were emails where Samsung was told to back off from copying Apple but did not heed their partners advice.
- mrich 14y ago
  I believe they used this trial to buy some time. They have many grounds to file an appeal now (think of the evidence they introduced too late, which was rejected). Until then, the verdict will not be final. Meanwhile, their old products which infringe can be phased out of the market without much cost. The newer products have their own style (Galaxy S III for example). The biggest danger they face now is the potential blocking of their most profitable products from the US market. But they likely can fix this all in software in the time until this ban can come into effect.
  - rst 14y ago
streptomycin 14y ago
Well that juror's patent sure is innovative... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
- timc3 14y ago
  Did he just describe a DVD/BluRay video recorder or a HD recorder which the harddrive is removable (basically all of them)? That patent is ridiculous.
  - ceol 14y ago
    It describes a DVR-like device that has the ability to copy media from the Internet to some sort of flash drive to later view on a television. It can also function as a web browser and a video editor. It's quite specific, so I'm not sure why you find it ridiculous.
    - Goronmon 14y ago
      Copying files, even a specific implementation, doesn't seem worthy of patent protection.
      - ceol 14y ago
        That would be true if this was just copying files. It's obviously not.
        tensor 14y ago
        Would you mind explaining the hidden complexity in it? The claims certainly seem obvious and trivial to me as well.
        ceol 14y ago
        Really? It's pretty specific, and I don't think anything like it exists right now. You would need a device made specifically to download videos from numerous sources onto an fixed internal drive. It would also need to be able to transfer the videos to an internal removable drive (not sure what this means, possibly SD card or removable HDD?) and play them back, edit them, and do additional processing to them. It doesn't sound like any Blu-Ray play I've ever seen. It's more like an Internet DVR device that also lets you edit videos and play them back on your TV from the device. That sounds pretty non-trivial to me.
vladd 14y ago
The jurors in this case were reviewed by both Apple and Samsung legal teams during the "Voir dire" process - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_States_and_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_Sta... . The process goes like this: each party, taking turns, gets to ask a question about potential jurors background or their current situation. Jurors that show potential bias or inability to deliver an independent ruling are thrown out (either by the judge's decision or by using a limited amount of discretionary vetoes that each party has). It's a major failure for Samsung's legal team to allow Hogan to stand, considering his background. I doubt these lawyers to be ever able to represent again a tech company in a court of law.
beedogs 14y ago
Honestly, the more these cretins open their mouths, the more I think Tim Cook might have to commission an "unsend" feature for Mail.app.
- taligent 14y ago
  Well considering only one of the jurors had an iPhone and two had Android phones maybe it would be Google needing to add this feature ?
neya 14y ago
I do not blame anyone, nor do I support anyone. My fair view is that Samsung DID cross the border by making their phones look too similar to the iPhone..BUT Apple shouldn't have won either, because what they have is a bunch of Bullshit patents just to hinder their competitors' success. (Rounded rectangles, Slide to unlock, Elastic bounce, seriously?) One thing I can conclude honestly (also from my own personal experience) is that we live in a very unfair world, being ruled by an unfair system, where someone who has the highest amount money will always WIN and RULE the system. Our governments are in bed with the entertainment industries for a reason. Think about it (ACTA, SOPA..etc). I was expecting the result to be something like what happened in Korea, where Samsung And Apple were found guilty and BOTH had to pay for damages. But this is a ridiculous - Apple has been sued by numerous competitors and yet it didn't infringe even a single patent? Come on...clearly this system is biased. For those who think Apple deserved to win, Apple did not do this to protect their IP, they are just suppressing their competitors by suing them. Why is Apple going after HTC and Motorola? I personally own a HTC and it looks and feels nothing like an iPhone. Apple might have 'innovated' as many claim it to have, but it has hindered more innovation than it has ever contributed. The case for HTC, Samsung and others today might be the case for you and me tomorrow as well, considering we start a phone company tomorrow. We are as vulnerable as they are. And Apple is the most innovative company in the world? Come on..innovation by litigation?? Well Apple, your end is very near, which is reflected by your panic, suing your competitors. This won't last very long and there will be someone to say 'Fuck you' to you very soon. Till then, enjoy your happiness while it lasts.
- mrcharles 14y ago
  Anyone still defending Apple as the underdog now needs to sit up and realize that Apple is now the 800lb gorilla.
  - rickmb 14y ago
    Not really. Take the patent system away, and all Apple has is a nice market share, a fat war chest and it's own ability to produce interesting products. Apple has taken the posture of the 800lb gorilla with a questionable legal maneuver, leveraging a patent systems its competitors were happy to support to keep smaller players down until it was used against them. And Apple can still lose the next move in this legal chess game if Google takes them on. This is very different from for instance the Microsoft of the '90s that had so much market power of its own it could dictate terms and kill competition simply with money and threats. That was a real 800lb gorilla. Apple is playing a very dangerous game by faking it through dubious legal tactics. But one court decision that doesn't go their way can completely kill that.
veyron 14y ago
For those not watching the stock marker: Nokia (NOK) up nearly 9% on this ...
Pharaoh45 14y ago
Anybody who confuses say... a Samsung Galaxy S II for ANY version of the iPhone is just plain stupid.
splamco 14y ago
The jurors blatantly disregarded the court's instructions. They were to be thorough, unbiased and apply the law, not send a message. Good chance for a mistrial.
vacri 14y ago
"sending a message" and "being 100% fair" are mutually exclusive. "Sending a message" is explicitly overpunishing a transgression so that news gets around about the harshness of the penalty.
nnq 14y ago
...I still don't get it why corporations are STUPID enough not to implement a system where old emails get deleted (in an unrecoverable way) after something like a week (ok, maybe they would have to invent their own messaging protocol with DRM-like features baked in, but still, it would totally worth the effort considering the legal risk of emails) ...or for god's sake, do "important" communication by voice-calls if not just face-to-face private meetings, but just don't leave this electronic "paper trail" that can turn back to legally "blow you up" at any time!
rsanchez1 14y ago
Theirs is not to send a message, it is to decide guilty or innocent, to interpret the law not write it.

43 points by iProject 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

It seems the whole jury quickly became biased towards the "patent holder" (whichever patent that may be) "thanks" to Hogan, not to mention they didn't even bother to consider prior art or to invalidate Apple's patents, which was a huge thing to consider, but they acted as if it wasn't. Just because a patent was afforded doesn't mean it was a good one. I'm not too familiar with how juries work in US, but the whole thing doesn't seem right to me. The jury should've been completely impartial.

paul9290 14y ago
Did you see how Samsung emails noting Samsung was told by Google to back off from copying Apple and they didnt is what persuaded their decision?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
taligent 14y ago
You don't know how juries work but yet according to you they weren't impartial. Can't fault that logic.

mrcharles 14y ago

As if pinch to zoom couldn't be suggested by a ten year old when presented with the problem of zooming on a multi-touch interface. Software patents are a joke.

pxlpshr 14y ago
People hate on software patents like they were hating on the cellphone industry just 5 years ago. One company doubled down on their innovation while disrupting their own major revenue channel. Meanwhile, the many stagnant phone manufactures continued copy/pasting crap because that's all they knew. BlackBerry executives went so far as to call Jobs' 2007 iPhone launch a "bluff" and an "impossible feat of engineering". Maybe multi-touch is painfully obvious on the surface, but end-to-end execution and total consumer package made the iPhone what it is today -- and that wasn't obvious until you held it in your hand, and everything just clicked. So in that regard, I think it's fair for Apple to protect their entire pie by defending the slices/key ingredients. PS. It took a few years before "pinch and zoom" was actually comparable to the fluidity of iOS. Some implementations on Android were a complete joke. PPS. I don't disagree that the patent process could use some revisions, but to dismiss the process entirely is just silly -- including software.
- watty 14y ago
  I agree it's the end-to-end execution that made the iPhone a success. But Samsung had a completely different end-to-end execution, right? I agree with being able to sue for a complete copy of end-to-end, or even an attempt to. I just didn't see it in this case, especially with all the prior art. I don't understand the recipe analogy, to me it's like Bush's Beans suing another bean company for the inclusion of cocoa in the recipe. I'm baffled that you feel pinch to zoom should be patentable.
  - taligent 14y ago
    No. That's the point of the case. Samsung DIDN'T have a completely different end to end execution. It was a blatant copy from the packaging, hardware design, software UI elements, connectors etc. And Samsung had documents demonstrating this. Microsoft and Palm are examples of unique end to end execution.
- fluidcruft 14y ago
  I certainly hope that patents aren't intended to protect realizing that something has economic value. I personally hold "This is an obvious way to do this" and "I can make a lot of money if I do this" to be nearly orthogonal. I'm a little tired of people claiming Apple deserves government protection because they discovered a market.
- dsr_ 14y ago
  People were right to hate the cellphone industry 5 years ago. The best things available were Nokia candybar phones -- approaching the Ford Escort in terms of reliability -- and the Palm Treo, which was more or less the apex of combining a PDA with a phone without actually doing much integration. People are currently right to hate cellphone service providers. As later history would reveal, BlackBerry executives were entirely correct to consider the iPhone an "impossible feat of engineering" -- from their point of view. RIM had huge market share, yet couldn't engineer its way out of a stapled paper bag.
  - beedogs 14y ago
bitsoda 14y ago
Apparently it wasn't so obvious in 2007 when all the handset makers scoffed at the iPhone.
- untog 14y ago
  I don't think anyone was scoffing because of pinch-to-zoom, though.
- mrcharles 14y ago
  Pretty sure the big deal, if you break it down to component parts, was actually having a capacitive touch screen rather than resistive. Fingers instead of styluses opened a whole new world of phone interactions. If they had patents on multitouch hardware itself, power to them. But software patents? Meh.
  - JoelSutherland 14y ago
    Pinch and zoom in 2001 on a capacitive screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s This was presented in the case. Apple argued it didn't represent prior art because: 1. The screen was a projector and therefor this showed two devices. (Capacitive CRTs have excited since the 80s) 2. Samsung didn't present the code for this implementation in time, so it could not be proved that this was either object oriented or event-based. So Apple's non-obvious extension of prior art was to 1. do this exact thing on a non-projector device, 2. use event-based code.
    - mrcharles 14y ago
      So, basic software development on new hardware. Gotcha.
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  Isn't scoffing at a new competitor just going through the motions required of you? No one is going to say "darn they beat us to it" to the press.

sp332 14y ago

As Groklaw pointed out, the jury was specifically instructed that the damages awarded should reflect the amount of money lost, not punish or "send a message" to Samsung. It's also pretty clear that the jury rushed through things, even if they say they didn't. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430341 Samsung will probably use the jurors' statements in their appeal.

papercrane 14y ago
Samsung will probably use the jurors' statements in their appeal. I don't think Samsung can. It is being reported that Federal rules don't allow them to consider jurors statements about the proceedings as evidence.
Retric 14y ago
They spend 2 and 1/2 days talking about it. Don't forget they had plenty of time to consider the evidence while it was being presented so the only thing they need to talk about was what they disagreed on. Which probably was mostly about how willful Samsung's infringement was, because that's the hardest thing to determine in cases like this.
- sp332 14y ago
  The 100+ pages of jury instructions were only provided on the 21st. Aside from their own comments that they "didn't need the jury instructions", there is this follow-up that shows a lot of inconsistencies in the verdict. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 edited
  - ryanhuff 14y ago
    These jury instructions were not 100+ pages of narrative. They were mostly "check the box" questions. I don't know if it's unreasonable to go through them in a few days if you already had a general feeling that Samsung had done wrong.

doktrin 14y ago

>> we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amount of which has yet to be decided. Maximum punitive damages are limited to 3x the original amount [1 billion], so the fact that this number was apparently inflated is non-trivial. [1] >> "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things." This juror clearly skirted the line of impartiality. I will have to read the whole interview. The notion of vigilante jurors doling out punishment based on their own bias is unsettling. As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. [1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billion-verdict.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billi...

mrich 14y ago
> As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place. I think it has become clear now :)
cremnob 14y ago
All the parties involved are aware what a risk jury trials can be. It's why many companies settle, and Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate. They made their bed as far as I'm concerned. I do have a problem with the jury being criticized though. This happens in all high-profile cases where some group of people dislike the decision. Judges are very protective of juries for this reason.
- binxbolling 14y ago
  In my opinion, if you start speaking to the press, it's fair game for the public to criticize. You don't want to be knocked for a controversial decision? Don't go blabbing on record.
- vacri 14y ago
  When the jury indicate that they didn't read the jury instructions and consequently did things that they were not meant to do, it's completely fair for them to be criticised. Hell, if anyone else in the courtroom did something of a similar nature, it'd be a mistrial, so how is that an overlookable offense?

WildUtah 14y ago

It's amazing that no matter how much you pay lawyers, they can be this incompetent. First they somehow never managed to get the patent review process going that Google proved could wipe out bogus trivial patents. Then Samsung's legal team missed deadlines to produce their prior art research. Then they stuffed the arguments about tablet computer trade dress into the largest part of their time and won that but failed to save time to make a case about smart phones. And most importantly, they let an obviously biased holder of silly patents who feels great pride in them get on the jury and lead it straight to this conclusion as foreman. Did they sleep through voir dire? Did the Samsung lawyers deliberately throw the case for some reason? Maybe the Korean corporate culture rubbed them the wrong way and they simply couldn't communicate effectively or they were hit with an epidemic of contagious chronic fatigue or something.

davedx 14y ago
In my experience, this is fairly standard for lawyers. Sometimes they are all too human. The problem is the consequences of their occasional (YMMV) incompetence can be so huge and far-reaching, as with this case.
paul9290 14y ago
It looks like they felt the most damning evidence were emails where Samsung was told to back off from copying Apple but did not heed their partners advice.
mrich 14y ago
I believe they used this trial to buy some time. They have many grounds to file an appeal now (think of the evidence they introduced too late, which was rejected). Until then, the verdict will not be final. Meanwhile, their old products which infringe can be phased out of the market without much cost. The newer products have their own style (Galaxy S III for example). The biggest danger they face now is the potential blocking of their most profitable products from the US market. But they likely can fix this all in software in the time until this ban can come into effect.
- rst 14y ago

streptomycin 14y ago

Well that juror's patent sure is innovative... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

timc3 14y ago
Did he just describe a DVD/BluRay video recorder or a HD recorder which the harddrive is removable (basically all of them)? That patent is ridiculous.
- ceol 14y ago
  It describes a DVR-like device that has the ability to copy media from the Internet to some sort of flash drive to later view on a television. It can also function as a web browser and a video editor. It's quite specific, so I'm not sure why you find it ridiculous.
  - Goronmon 14y ago
    Copying files, even a specific implementation, doesn't seem worthy of patent protection.
    - ceol 14y ago
      That would be true if this was just copying files. It's obviously not.
      - tensor 14y ago
        Would you mind explaining the hidden complexity in it? The claims certainly seem obvious and trivial to me as well.
        ceol 14y ago
        Really? It's pretty specific, and I don't think anything like it exists right now. You would need a device made specifically to download videos from numerous sources onto an fixed internal drive. It would also need to be able to transfer the videos to an internal removable drive (not sure what this means, possibly SD card or removable HDD?) and play them back, edit them, and do additional processing to them. It doesn't sound like any Blu-Ray play I've ever seen. It's more like an Internet DVR device that also lets you edit videos and play them back on your TV from the device. That sounds pretty non-trivial to me.

vladd 14y ago

The jurors in this case were reviewed by both Apple and Samsung legal teams during the "Voir dire" process - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_States_and_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_Sta... . The process goes like this: each party, taking turns, gets to ask a question about potential jurors background or their current situation. Jurors that show potential bias or inability to deliver an independent ruling are thrown out (either by the judge's decision or by using a limited amount of discretionary vetoes that each party has). It's a major failure for Samsung's legal team to allow Hogan to stand, considering his background. I doubt these lawyers to be ever able to represent again a tech company in a court of law.

beedogs 14y ago

Honestly, the more these cretins open their mouths, the more I think Tim Cook might have to commission an "unsend" feature for Mail.app.

taligent 14y ago
Well considering only one of the jurors had an iPhone and two had Android phones maybe it would be Google needing to add this feature ?

neya 14y ago

I do not blame anyone, nor do I support anyone. My fair view is that Samsung DID cross the border by making their phones look too similar to the iPhone..BUT Apple shouldn't have won either, because what they have is a bunch of Bullshit patents just to hinder their competitors' success. (Rounded rectangles, Slide to unlock, Elastic bounce, seriously?) One thing I can conclude honestly (also from my own personal experience) is that we live in a very unfair world, being ruled by an unfair system, where someone who has the highest amount money will always WIN and RULE the system. Our governments are in bed with the entertainment industries for a reason. Think about it (ACTA, SOPA..etc). I was expecting the result to be something like what happened in Korea, where Samsung And Apple were found guilty and BOTH had to pay for damages. But this is a ridiculous - Apple has been sued by numerous competitors and yet it didn't infringe even a single patent? Come on...clearly this system is biased. For those who think Apple deserved to win, Apple did not do this to protect their IP, they are just suppressing their competitors by suing them. Why is Apple going after HTC and Motorola? I personally own a HTC and it looks and feels nothing like an iPhone. Apple might have 'innovated' as many claim it to have, but it has hindered more innovation than it has ever contributed. The case for HTC, Samsung and others today might be the case for you and me tomorrow as well, considering we start a phone company tomorrow. We are as vulnerable as they are. And Apple is the most innovative company in the world? Come on..innovation by litigation?? Well Apple, your end is very near, which is reflected by your panic, suing your competitors. This won't last very long and there will be someone to say 'Fuck you' to you very soon. Till then, enjoy your happiness while it lasts.

mrcharles 14y ago
Anyone still defending Apple as the underdog now needs to sit up and realize that Apple is now the 800lb gorilla.
- rickmb 14y ago
  Not really. Take the patent system away, and all Apple has is a nice market share, a fat war chest and it's own ability to produce interesting products. Apple has taken the posture of the 800lb gorilla with a questionable legal maneuver, leveraging a patent systems its competitors were happy to support to keep smaller players down until it was used against them. And Apple can still lose the next move in this legal chess game if Google takes them on. This is very different from for instance the Microsoft of the '90s that had so much market power of its own it could dictate terms and kill competition simply with money and threats. That was a real 800lb gorilla. Apple is playing a very dangerous game by faking it through dubious legal tactics. But one court decision that doesn't go their way can completely kill that.

veyron 14y ago

For those not watching the stock marker: Nokia (NOK) up nearly 9% on this ...

Pharaoh45 14y ago

Anybody who confuses say... a Samsung Galaxy S II for ANY version of the iPhone is just plain stupid.

splamco 14y ago

The jurors blatantly disregarded the court's instructions. They were to be thorough, unbiased and apply the law, not send a message. Good chance for a mistrial.

vacri 14y ago

"sending a message" and "being 100% fair" are mutually exclusive. "Sending a message" is explicitly overpunishing a transgression so that news gets around about the harshness of the penalty.

nnq 14y ago

...I still don't get it why corporations are STUPID enough not to implement a system where old emails get deleted (in an unrecoverable way) after something like a week (ok, maybe they would have to invent their own messaging protocol with DRM-like features baked in, but still, it would totally worth the effort considering the legal risk of emails) ...or for god's sake, do "important" communication by voice-calls if not just face-to-face private meetings, but just don't leave this electronic "paper trail" that can turn back to legally "blow you up" at any time!

rsanchez1 14y ago

Theirs is not to send a message, it is to decide guilty or innocent, to interpret the law not write it.