Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[Aristotelian]

Uhh. I don't think some people are understanding the basic argumentation at play here.

If someone states "Apple deserves this patent because they invented X", and someone says "Apple didn't invent X, they were just lucky enough to patent it" -

Responding with "Apple were the first to mass market X" does not validate the first premise, that "Apple deserves this patent because they invented X".

For all the people claiming that there is 'crying' going on, perhaps some further and emphasized attention to the arguments actually at stake would enable some clarity here.

Apple didn't invent multi touch, as clearly demonstrated, nor did they invent unified search, nor is 'swipe to unlock' a non-trivial touch interaction on a touch interface.

None of this means that Apple doesn't have various patents that cover these issues, but having the patent is neither necessary nor sufficient to support the claim that they invented X.

It's really that simple.

 

[abaez]

Not by itself. None of the prior art has been patented nor has invalidated Apple's patents. There's no use complaining when the patents have not been invalidated.

Weren't invalidated due to prior art because the jury "skipped" that question in this particular trial.

 

[MotionMan]

Uhh. I don't think some people are understanding the basic argumentation at play here.

If someone states "Apple deserves this patent because they invented X", and someone says "Apple didn't invent X, they were just lucky enough to patent it" -

Responding with "Apple were the first to mass market X" does not validate the first premise, that "Apple deserves this patent because they invented X".

For all the people claiming that there is 'crying' going on, perhaps some further and emphasized attention to the arguments actually at stake would enable some clarity here.

Apple didn't invent multi touch, as clearly demonstrated, nor did they invent unified search, nor is 'swipe to unlock' a non-trivial touch interaction on a touch interface.

None of this means that Apple doesn't have various patents that cover these issues, but having the patent is neither necessary nor sufficient to support the claim that they invented X.

It's really that simple.

In the Court of Law, the first issue is: Does the plaintiff have a valid patent on this? If the answer is 'yes', then you can stop arguing about who invented it, whether they should have the patent or what is wrong with the patent system. Once they have a valid patent, the only discussion to follow is whether or not the patent was infringed by the defendant.

Most anti-Apple people in this thread cannot get past the first question and keep including its analysis in their discussion of the second question (i.e. "Samsung did not infringe because Apple did not invent it.")

Because of that, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with some people.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Weren't invalidated due to prior art because the jury "skipped" that question in this particular trial.

Link? (Seriously, please.)

MotionMan

 

[Timorous]

Link? (Seriously, please.)

MotionMan

for the 4th time in this thread the relevant quotes can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.

 

[MrX8503]

Weren't invalidated due to prior art because the jury "skipped" that question in this particular trial.

They skipped it at first, then went back to it and decided unanimously. They didn't skip it altogether.

"Just minutes after the nine jurors in the Apple Inc. AAPL +0.09% and Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE -0.93% patent trial began deliberating last week, they were stuck. It was seven "yes" votes to two "no" votes on the first question they faced: whether Samsung violated an Apple patent related to the bounceback action a touch-screen makes.
With the votes tallied on a white board, they decided to review the evidence, recounted juror Manuel Ilagan in an interview. They powered up a video of a computerized touchscreen tablet that had been developed by Mitsubishi 8306.TO -1.60% that Samsung asserted proved Apple didn't come up with the idea first and that its patent should be invalidated.
They were huddled around a large oval table in a conference room at the federal courthouse here. On one side there was a large white board. On the other, a refrigerator and coffee machine.
Mr. Ilagan, who is 59, said they watched the video "very, very carefully" but decided to move on when the two weren't swayed. "We didn't want to get bogged down," said Mr. Ilagan, who works in marketing for a company that makes circuit boards.
The bounceback patent, which the jurors eventually decided unanimously that Samsung infringed, was one of a handful of sticking points in the otherwise smooth and surprisingly quick 22 hours of deliberations, according to Mr. Ilagan's account."

 

[MotionMan]

for the 4th time in this thread the relevant quotes can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.

Since that had been debunked before, I thought there was some new information. Yes, the jury initially skipped it, but then went back a decided on it, which is not all that uncommon.

I think the people who keep saying they skipped it without acknowledging that they did eventually come to a decision on it are being disingenuous or are simply stupid.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

The bounceback patent, which the jurors eventually decided unanimously that Samsung infringed, was one of a handful of sticking points in the otherwise smooth and surprisingly quick 22 hours of deliberations, according to Mr. Ilagan's account."[/i]

Bolded.

MotionMan

 

[Aristotelian]

In the Court of Law, the first issue is: Does the plaintiff have a valid patent on this? If the answer is 'yes', then you can stop arguing about who invented it, whether they should have the patent or what is wrong with the patent system. Once they have a valid patent, the only discussion to follow is whether or not the patent was infringed by the defendant.

Most anti-Apple people in this thread cannot get past the first question and keep including its analysis in their discussion of the second question (i.e. "Samsung did not infringe because Apple did not invent it.")

Because of that, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with some people.

MotionMan

I think that the inability to have an intelligent conversation about this subject is precisely because some people think that the mere fact that Apple has a patent for swipe-to-unlock is a bulwark against further discussion.

If you don't find the discussions of whether or not Apple should have such patents interesting, fine. But that doesn't really give others a reason not to get into the nitty gritty of this subject. Nor does it mean that they are 'crying' if they do not agree that Apple should have patents for trivialities.

Nor does Apple's having a patent make them innovative. It merely displays their ability to obtain patents. Nor does Apple's being the first to mass market a touch screen grant them any such claim to 'inventing' touch screen technology, which is implied by the logic in some peoples' arguments.

But perhaps we just disagree on what is interesting. I'm not debating what you said about what happens in a court of law, I'm simply showing that this isn't a court of law. So we can have an intelligent discussion of good/bad, right/wrong, and the ever relevant 'ought'.

 

[MotionMan]

I think that the inability to have an intelligent conversation about this subject is precisely because some people think that the mere fact that Apple has a patent for swipe-to-unlock is a bulwark against further discussion.

If you don't find the discussions of whether or not Apple should have such patents interesting, fine. But that doesn't really give others a reason not to get into the nitty gritty of this subject. Nor does it mean that they are 'crying' if they do not agree that Apple should have patents for trivialities.

Nor does Apple's having a patent make them innovative. It merely displays their ability to obtain patents. Nor does Apple's being the first to mass market a touch screen grant them any such claim to 'inventing' touch screen technology, which is implied by the logic in some peoples' arguments.

But perhaps we just disagree on what is interesting. I'm not debating what you said about what happens in a court of law, I'm simply showing that this isn't a court of law. So we can have an intelligent discussion of good/bad, right/wrong, and the ever relevant 'ought'.

A discussion about the patent system is different than a discussion about the lawsuit. This thread is about the lawsuit. People keep arguing that Apple should not have won the lawsuit because they should not have the patents. I am just pointing out that is a combination of two different discussions (one of which is not the subject of this thread).

MotionMan

 

[MrX8503]

Nor does Apple's having a patent make them innovative. It merely displays their ability to obtain patents.

Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") -Wikipedia

Patents are there to protect. You don't think the iPhone as a whole changed the way we use/think about smartphones?

 

[cheezy321]

Multi-touch seen at TED in 2006, unimaginable before Apple patented it. Rounded icons in 2006? Never before seen in history and unimaginable before 2006.

Slide to unlock? Already ruled as trivial in Europe due to prior art, unimaginable before Apple patented it.

A cell phone with a multi touch screen containing rounded icons and slide to unlock was unimaginable before apple patented it, yes. This and the design of the iPhone was unimaginable before apple did it.

By your logic, we have jet engines and we have cars. Therefore the first person to make a flying car does not deserve a patent. Its an 'obvious' next step.

 

[Aristotelian]

A discussion about the patent system is different than a discussion about the lawsuit. This thread is about the lawsuit. People keep arguing that Apple should not have won the lawsuit because they should not have the patents. I am just pointing out that is a combination of two different discussions (one of which is not the subject of this thread).

MotionMan

Right. I agree that the two discussions are intertwined in this thread. I don't agree that they can be easily separated, when the result of the trial was a direct result of Apple's patents. So, some people would say "the outcome is absurd because Apple should never have had the patents" in the same way as an undergraduate student will recognize that:

i) If Apple has patents, then it can successfully sue other companies that approximate the patent in any of its products.
ii) Apple has patents that were approximated.
iii) Therefore, Apple successfully sued another company that approximates its patents.

Is a valid argument, but the validity of the argument is not what all courts ought to care about (check the references to Europe). Some legal systems care about how sound the argument in question is, not that it is merely valid.

The two are, on my view, intertwined. And some of the posts in this thread appear to say that the legal system in the USA should have assessed the second argument you refer to as well, in order to check for more than the validity of a basic argument.

Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") -Wikipedia

Patents are there to protect. You don't think the iPhone as a whole changed the way we use/think about smartphones?

Patents are there to protect, yes. But I think you and I would disagree with respect to what they exist to protect. And this point has been covered earlier in the thread. Why do you think that Apple's 'being the first to mass market X' (referring to one of your recent posts in this thread) is sufficient to provide a patent with a legitimate basis? I find that very confusing.

 

[Timorous]

Since that had been debunked before, I thought there was some new information. Yes, the jury initially skipped it, but then went back a decided on it, which is not all that uncommon.

I think the people who keep saying they skipped it without acknowledging that they did eventually come to a decision on it are being disingenuous or are simply stupid.

MotionMan

Where is a link to the quote that MrX8503 posted? Further that is just talking about the bounce back patent. What about all the other patents involved?

Even if it was open and shut that all the patents were valid and Samsung had infringed with some devices I would still expect it to take more than 22 hours to work out what devices had infringed which patents and what the damages should be for each device. To me that time frame is just way too short to have done everything properly.

 

[MotionMan]

Where is a link to the quote that MrX8503 posted? Further that is just talking about the bounce back patent. What about all the other patents involved?

I don't know. Did they "skip" others? Or did they render verdicts for every one?

Even if it was open and shut that all the patents were valid and Samsung had infringed with some devices I would still expect it to take more than 22 hours to work out what devices had infringed which patents and what the damages should be for each device. To me that time frame is just way too short to have done everything properly.

Why would you expect it to take longer?

I am a trial lawyer and I have found that the amount of time a jury takes on a verdict has no bearing on how "right" or "wrong" it is.

MotionMan

 

[MrX8503]

Here's the link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html

It was also on Reddit.

Why do you think that Apple's 'being the first to mass market X' (referring to one of your recent posts in this thread) is sufficient to provide a patent with a legitimate basis? I find that very confusing.

I don't think it's sufficient independently. (referring to my recent posts)

 

[Kenmitch]

When it first went on sale in 1976, the Apple-1 had an asking prices of $666

From the onset Apple was a evil company it looks like. The Apple logo was chosen for a reason....Just as the price of the initial offering!

As far as the trial goes/went only time will tell what developes from it.

 

[JimKiler]

A discussion about the patent system is different than a discussion about the lawsuit. This thread is about the lawsuit. People keep arguing that Apple should not have won the lawsuit because they should not have the patents. I am just pointing out that is a combination of two different discussions (one of which is not the subject of this thread).

MotionMan

Say what? So we should forget that Samsung was trying to use prior art in the trial and invalidate the Apple patents to the jurors?

 

[BoberFett]

Did you patent it?

MotionMan

Nope. It was obvious. But Apple didn't invent it either.

 

[BoberFett]

In the Court of Law, the first issue is: Does the plaintiff have a valid patent on this? If the answer is 'yes', then you can stop arguing about who invented it, whether they should have the patent or what is wrong with the patent system. Once they have a valid patent, the only discussion to follow is whether or not the patent was infringed by the defendant.

Most anti-Apple people in this thread cannot get past the first question and keep including its analysis in their discussion of the second question (i.e. "Samsung did not infringe because Apple did not invent it.")

Because of that, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with some people.

MotionMan

A joke comes to mind. Something about lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...

 

[BoberFett]

A cell phone with a multi touch screen containing rounded icons and slide to unlock was unimaginable before apple patented it, yes. This and the design of the iPhone was unimaginable before apple did it.

By your logic, we have jet engines and we have cars. Therefore the first person to make a flying car does not deserve a patent. Its an 'obvious' next step.

If that person engineers a novel way to fold and/or store the wings while not flying, that may be eligible for a patent.

They cannot own the concept of a flying car.

This is what Apple fanatics don't seem to understand.

 

[Eug]

Back around 2000 I was the lead software developer for a company that produced legal research software. I designed an interface that searched both local content and web content and comingled the results. It's a pretty obvious concept to anyone who isn't an idiot. I can understand why Apple fanatics believe Apple invented it.

I was talking to a Microsoft exec back in the 1990s and they were thinking along the same lines, regarding Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, but then the anti-trust suit forced them to rip Internet Explorer out of Windows.

Mind you, I agreed with that at the time, because Internet Explorer was being shoved down everyone's throats.

 

[BladeVenom]

Weren't invalidated due to prior art because the jury "skipped" that question in this particular trial.

The judge also blocked Samsung from showing all of it's evidence of prior art. They weren't allowed to show prior art from movies and TV. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25329 And the designs that Samsung had already begun before the iPhone even came out. http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-infuriates-apple-with-iphone-evidence-leak-01241146/

 

[silverpig]

I don't know. Did they "skip" others? Or did they render verdicts for every one?



Why would you expect it to take longer?

I am a trial lawyer and I have found that the amount of time a jury takes on a verdict has no bearing on how "right" or "wrong" it is.

MotionMan

Really? Are you making a distinction between the "answer" being right vs the process by which the answer was obtained was right?

Ever seen the Simpsons episode where Homer had jury duty? Everyone thinks Quimby's kid was guilty, Homer held out because he wanted a free hotel (and Free Willy!), and it turned out that he was actually innocent after all (how many esses in innocent?).

Now consider that the jury in this trial didn't bother to read all of the instructions the judge gave them, and seemingly chose to ignore at least some of them.

One of the lawyers at groklaw said it would have taken her 3 days to fully understand and consider all 150 pages of instructions, so for the jury to come to a judgement in 22 hours is a bit scary.

 

[MotionMan]

Really? Are you making a distinction between the "answer" being right vs the process by which the answer was obtained was right?

No. I was commenting on the fact that people have put any weight in the amount of time it took the jury to reach a verdict. From my experience as a trial lawyer, I put zero weight on the deliberation time.

Ever seen the Simpsons episode where Homer had jury duty? Everyone thinks Quimby's kid was guilty, Homer held out because he wanted a free hotel (and Free Willy!), and it turned out that he was actually innocent after all (how many esses in innocent?).

No one is found innocent. They are found not guilty. There is a big difference. In any event, I don't use the Simpsons to prove my points regarding the legal system - I use my 17+ years of experience as a California litigation attorney.

Now consider that the jury in this trial didn't bother to read all of the instructions the judge gave them, and seemingly chose to ignore at least some of them.

Actually, all of the instructions were read to them. They are not required to actually physically read the jury instructions, though they are made available to the jury for reference.

Which instructions do you believe they ignored?

One of the lawyers at groklaw said it would have taken her 3 days to fully understand and consider all 150 pages of instructions, so for the jury to come to a judgement in 22 hours is a bit scary.

That still does not invalidate the result. Not all jury instructions are important to reaching a verdict.

Also, what most non-lawyers fail to realize is that the jury does not have to consider every single piece of evidence. Facts that may seem important to the public, and even the lawyers, may have no import to the members of the jury.

I have had many cases where I thought a certain piece of evidence was important where I was told, after the trial, that the jury did not think it was important at all. This is why it is preferable to settle!!! There is no such thing as a slam dunk winner or loser once you hand it to 12 people in a box.

I am not saying the verdict was right or wrong. What I am saying is that the behavior of the jury was not improper or all that unusual.

I welcome any other members of the ATOT Legal Bar to disagree with me.

MotionMan