08-29-2012, 05:07 PM | #16 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
|
Quote:
Graham |
|
08-29-2012, 05:15 PM | #17 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
|
Quote:
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 |
|
08-29-2012, 07:28 PM | #18 | ||
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-29-2012, 07:36 PM | #19 | |
Guru
Posts: 895
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: na
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-29-2012, 07:42 PM | #20 | |
Guru
Posts: 895
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: na
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-29-2012, 07:52 PM | #21 | |
Guru
Posts: 895
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: na
|
I took this quote as been more important from the interview
Quote:
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. |
|
08-29-2012, 08:23 PM | #22 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,038
Karma: 39379388
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-29-2012, 10:17 PM | #23 | |
Captain Penguin
Posts: 2,947
Karma: 2077653593
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Nook Glowlight
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-29-2012, 11:20 PM | #24 | |
Geographically Restricted
Posts: 2,629
Karma: 14933353
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Device: Sony PRS-T3, Kindle Voyage, iPad Air2, Nexus7v2
|
Quote:
That sets an agenda. If there was infringement, then monies are about compensation NOT to punish. |
|
08-30-2012, 02:22 AM | #25 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
|
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 |
08-30-2012, 06:27 AM | #26 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Yes, this was a total sham. I hope it all comes out in the appeal.
|
08-30-2012, 07:19 AM | #27 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
08-30-2012, 09:43 AM | #28 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,041
Karma: 4694121
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Device: Pocket Edge X 2 , Edge, gTab, Kindle Fire, Nextbook 7S
|
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. |
08-30-2012, 09:45 AM | #29 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
|
Quote:
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 |
|
08-30-2012, 09:49 AM | #30 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,041
Karma: 4694121
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Device: Pocket Edge X 2 , Edge, gTab, Kindle Fire, Nextbook 7S
|
Sorry. Getting tunnel vision in my old age.
Last edited by obsessed2; 08-30-2012 at 10:05 AM. |
|
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 |