Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book General > News

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-29-2012, 05:07 PM   #16
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,505
Karma: 30000747
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
That is a pretty big if.
We have very little information, and an awful lot over overexcited inferences being drawn from it.
The quotes from the foreman and the juror largely corroborate each other. The subsequent 15 minute interview with the foreman, which you can watch for yourself, clarifies some of the points but reinforces others that are raising eyebrows.

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 05:15 PM   #17
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,505
Karma: 30000747
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
2. The jury didn't ignore the prior art evidence that was presented.
Do you have a link that makes that clear?

Watch the interview with foreman. He's asked specifically about prior art from about 13 minutes in, and responds with comments about how it was clear that Samsung infringed the design patents. I can find no reference that shows that after skipping coming to a conclusion on the prior art evidence on day 1 of deliberations they went back to consider it properly later on.

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 07:28 PM   #18
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,171
Karma: 7754464
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Do you have a link that makes that clear?

Watch the interview with foreman. He's asked specifically about prior art from about 13 minutes in, and responds with comments about how it was clear that Samsung infringed the design patents. I can find no reference that shows that after skipping coming to a conclusion on the prior art evidence on day 1 of deliberations they went back to consider it properly later on.

Graham
Here's the quote I'm looking at (from the interview):

Quote:
Emily Chang: You know it's all obviously extremely technical. there has been a lot of talk since this verdict has come down. How did you guys make this verdict so quickly. There were more than a hundred pages of jury instructions. There are even reports that you didn't read all of those instructions.

Vel Hogan: Oh. We read. First off, before closing arguments was given, the judge read to us the final instructions, instruction by instruction. Then she allowed the closing arguments, then she dismissed us. And so we had those closing argue..., those ah, instructions and we had them open there and then we took patent by patent and got hung upon the first one but the day was almost over by then and so I said to the jury, "We're not going to allow ourselves to get hung up. We're going to, if we find a debate like this, we'll move on. We'll do the simplest things first.” So then when I came back the next day...
Andrew H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 07:36 PM   #19
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 883
Karma: 4235574
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
Groklaw is *not* a less biased source at all. They are a FOSS advocacy site, which is fine, but their trial coverage reflects that bias, and has been absolutely terrible.
Their coverage of the Oracle/Google trail was spot on imo and all their doubts about the case were eventually shown to be accurate, which is more than can be said about the way mainstream media reported on the trail.

One thing groklaw do, is they often provide links to the court transcripts and other sources so we can always judge the material for ourselves and decide if we share their opinion/analysis or not.

There's bound to be some bias on every site, but so far I've found groklaw to be much more balanced than most. Not that I always agree with their conclusions.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 07:42 PM   #20
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 883
Karma: 4235574
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
IOW, they thought that Apple's damages were too high, which is why they only awarded 1/3 of those damages, much closer to what Samsung recommended. It's clear that they were not trying to punish Samsung.

(Coverage of these issues has been pretty bad, with most blogs just repeating headlines from other blogs, without looking at the actual sources).
Damages are supposed to compensate Apple for what they'd have earned had Samsung licensed the patents in question aren't they? If that's the case, then "high enough to be painful" shouldn't come into it. That imo sounds more like a punishment than damages. Also saying "slap on the wrist" suggests they saw the damages as a punishment and not simply payment that was due.

That's imho though, maybe I'm reading too much into what was said and I've no idea if any of what is been said could cause the judge to retry the case or if it's just extra ammo for Samsung to use in an appeal.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 07:52 PM   #21
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 883
Karma: 4235574
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
Here's the quote I'm looking at (from the interview):
I took this quote as been more important from the interview

Quote:
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.
Emphasis mine.

It sounds like they went back to the prior art they'd got hung up on after his "aha" moment. However, it sounds like they then discounted it as been prior art based on his interpretation of what counts as valid prior art, which appears to be a flawed interpretation to me.

I was always under the impression that anything that has been publicly released/documented can count as prior art, it doesn't actually have to do anything or be functional, just text/graphics could count for example.

If the jury have incorrectly discounted prior art based on flawed advice from the foreman, how would that impact the validity of their ruling? Could the judge overturn the verdict or ask for a retrial? Or is it just more evidence to present at an appeal? I'm not really familiar with the US legal system.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 08:23 PM   #22
SteveEisenberg
Wizard
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,472
Karma: 10888888
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Keyboard 3G
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock View Post
I am amazed that the jury are allowed to talk about their deliberations, and are not bound to secrecy. Is this normal in the US?
Yes.

The judge can give the jury whatever advice on this he or she wants to give, and the jurors can do what they want with it. Googling this a bit, it sounds like US judges are more likely to tell the jury that they don't have to talk with the press than to out and out advise them against it.

One thing the jury must have known: Apple is a local firm, and Samsung is foreign. There should be some provision to have an international tribunal.

Last edited by SteveEisenberg; 08-29-2012 at 10:21 PM.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 10:17 PM   #23
afv011
Captain Penguin
afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afv011's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,768
Karma: 2076603579
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: nook*, nexus 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
Of course, absolutely none of this is true however.

1.The jury didn't skip the instructions; the instructions were read to the jury in open court. The quote that Groklaw was flogging to support this idea (since they didn't actually follow the trial) came from when the jury went back in to fix the two discrepancies in the verdict form. This is crystal clear in the Verge's coverage; Groklaw took it out of context.

2. The jury didn't ignore the prior art evidence that was presented.

3. The idea that they went for punishing fees is another statement taken out of context. Here's the actual quote from the juror:



IOW, they thought that Apple's damages were too high, which is why they only awarded 1/3 of those damages, much closer to what Samsung recommended. It's clear that they were not trying to punish Samsung.

(Coverage of these issues has been pretty bad, with most blogs just repeating headlines from other blogs, without looking at the actual sources).

I should also point out that juror statements about deliberations are not grounds for appeal unless they relate to bribery or someone outside the jury trying to influence them.
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful".

That there indicates with no doubt that they did not look for "reasonable royalty fees", but went for a punishing figure. That can be appealed by Samsung.
afv011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 11:20 PM   #24
sabredog
Geographically Restricted
sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sabredog ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
sabredog's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,583
Karma: 14933353
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Device: Sony PRS-650, Sony PRS-T3, Kindle 3, iPad2, Nexus7v2
Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011 View Post
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful".

That there indicates with no doubt that they did not look for "reasonable royalty fees", but went for a punishing figure. That can be appealed by Samsung.
Agreed.

That sets an agenda.

If there was infringement, then monies are about compensation NOT to punish.
sabredog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 02:22 AM   #25
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,505
Karma: 30000747
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
Here's the quote I'm looking at (from the interview):
But he doesn't go on to say that they went back to reviewing prior art, particularly with regard to the design patent. His comment about coming back the next day was in reference to his 'aha' moment regarding Apple's code not running on prior art processors.

And that in itself is flawed, as if Apple is exonerated on the grounds that their code couldn't run on prior art devices, then surely Samsung should also be exonerated since their code couldn't run on iOS?

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 06:27 AM   #26
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kennyc ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
kennyc's Avatar
 
Posts: 31,489
Karma: 61688757
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Galaxy SIII; Xoom; Kindle Fire
Yes, this was a total sham. I hope it all comes out in the appeal.
kennyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 07:19 AM   #27
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,505
Karma: 30000747
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabredog View Post
If there was infringement, then monies are about compensation NOT to punish.
And even there you have to scratch your head. The jury decided to accept Samsung's 12% profit margin figure on the accused devices, but bumped it up (for some reason) to 14%.

So wait... they awarded damages equal to all of Samsung's profit margin (and maybe a bit more) as compensation for lost sales to Apple.

So they're saying that everyone who bought a Samsung phone would have bought an iPhone instead? Even those who bought the cheaper phones, or those on different carriers?

Or maybe they're saying there would have been some Apple sales lost but due to Apple's far higher profit margin it would equate to Samsung's full sales?

On just a handful of patents, making up a fraction of the intellectual property of the devices in question?

See the LA Times for their take on what the IP infringements should really be worth:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3981673.story

Quote:
The average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents, not to mention myriad copyrights and other design-related intellectual property. (Companies don't sift through every patent coming out of Washington before engineering and releasing a product; they create devices and battle claims as necessary.)

If you were to divide the average retail price of a smartphone — about $400 — by those 250,000 potentially applicable patents, you'd find that each one would account for just $0.0016 of the phone's value. And, in reality, even that's too much, once you factor in the costs of raw materials, labor, transportation and marketing, which also contribute to a phone's value.

Yet for infringing just a handful of Apple's patents, Samsung faces a minimum payment of $48 per phone, a shocking 30,000 times the average per patent value. Put another way, if the owners of all the 250,000 inventions that might be present in Samsung smartphones were awarded damages at the same level as Apple, Samsung would have to charge a ludicrous $2 million per phone just to break even.
Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 09:43 AM   #28
obsessed2
Wizard
obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
obsessed2's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,031
Karma: 4667325
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Device: Pocket Edge X 2 , Edge, gTab, Kindle Fire, Nextbook 7S
Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011 View Post
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful".
This isn't painful. This is ridiculously painful. The Los Angeles Times article from post #27 above says the award is 30,000 times the average per patent value!

Last edited by obsessed2; 08-30-2012 at 09:54 AM.
obsessed2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 09:45 AM   #29
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,505
Karma: 30000747
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsessed2 View Post
A Los Angeles Times article by Brian J. Love is an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law says the award vastly overstates the real worth of each patent.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3981673.story
Um, isn't that the same link I put in the post above yours?

So good, we can read it twice!

I'll admit though that although his general point stands, I'd like to know how he estimates a quarter of a million patents infringed per device.

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2012, 09:49 AM   #30
obsessed2
Wizard
obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.obsessed2 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
obsessed2's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,031
Karma: 4667325
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Device: Pocket Edge X 2 , Edge, gTab, Kindle Fire, Nextbook 7S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Um, isn't that the same link I put in the post above yours?

So good, we can read it twice!

I'll admit though that although his general point stands, I'd like to know how he estimates a quarter of a million patents infringed per device.

Graham
Sorry. Getting tunnel vision in my old age.

Last edited by obsessed2; 08-30-2012 at 10:05 AM.
obsessed2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung v. Apple carpetmojo News 625 11-18-2012 11:07 AM
Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple says afv011 Android Devices 5 07-19-2012 05:50 PM
Apple must apologise to Samsung BeccaPrice News 1 07-19-2012 10:47 AM
Apple vs Samsung US Ruling JD Gumby News 14 06-30-2012 03:49 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 AM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.