Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apple attorney Bill Lee defended Apple’s proposed witness list.

“First, I am not smoking crack I can promise you that,” Lee said.



That's a great line.
 
numble said:
The time limit includes time for cross-examination.
Click to expand...

still strange, anyway. You didn't post about Apple getting torn down on their damages.Which were really good arguments using Apples own evidence against them.

- Only 25% of the people in the survey Apple took who bought an android device were looking at an iphone.
- Apples numbers go off the assumption that all infringing devices are immediately and fully removed from the market, which has been proven to be false
- On average, a samsung phone is purchased for $67 cheaper then an iphone.


anyway, i'd be perfectly content with invalidated patents and Samsung getting some kind of judgement for design (i know others here think the design stuff is bunk also, but i care less)
 
gcubed said:
still strange, anyway. You didn't post about Apple getting torn down on their damages.Which were really good arguments using Apples own evidence against them.

- Only 25% of the people in the survey Apple took who bought an android device were looking at an iphone.
- Apples numbers go off the assumption that all infringing devices are immediately and fully removed from the market, which has been proven to be false
- On average, a samsung phone is purchased for $67 cheaper then an iphone.


anyway, i'd be perfectly content with invalidated patents and Samsung getting some kind of judgement for design (i know others here think the design stuff is bunk also, but i care less)
Click to expand...
The damages are less interesting to me. The jury will come up with some random number anyway if they find there's infringement, I think the claims and arguments are just a big battle of paid experts. The big issue will be whether infringement is found, not the amount that will be paid.
 
numble said:
The damages are less interesting to me. The jury will come up with some random number anyway if they find there's infringement, I think the claims and arguments are just a big battle of paid experts. The big issue will be whether infringement is found, not the amount that will be paid.
Click to expand...

billions would be a big deal
 
gcubed said:
its much more common in civil cases but i'm pretty sure they can't be denied cross examining a witness, no matter the time
Click to expand...

I have never heard of that happen. She may give them limited time, but it will be additional time.

Edit: was it all inclusive? Sounds iffy.
 
numble said:
I guess it is for headlines, but I'm more interested in it hopefully setting a standard for what FRAND actually means, and maybe for all these design and utility patents.
Click to expand...

Clarity will be much more valuable than the actual damages. Because it can either immediately spur more suits/settlements or let many companies breathe huge sighs of relief and either way get on with actual consumer concerns.
 
With these examinations regarding prior art, would the jury be expected to judge the validity of the patent? That seems weird to me as I assume they is a separate channel for that. Unless instructed otherwise, wouldn't they have to assume that all patents are valid?
 
Goldrush said:
With these examinations regarding prior art, would the jury be expected to judge the validity of the patent? That seems weird to me as I assume they is a separate channel for that. Unless instructed otherwise, wouldn't they have to assume that all patents are valid?
Click to expand...

i dont think juries would judge the validity. They would judge the validity in that they think it has prior art and therefore can't be awarded against, but i'm not sure if they have final say.
 
Ewii7.png


Poor Koh, so pissed off.
 
Goldrush said:
With these examinations regarding prior art, would the jury be expected to judge the validity of the patent? That seems weird to me as I assume they is a separate channel for that. Unless instructed otherwise, wouldn't they have to assume that all patents are valid?
Click to expand...

What other channel do you think there'd be other than a court case? God help us all if patents are treated as immune from being struck down in court.
 
Judge Grewal has denied Samsung's request for an adverse jury instruction, without even considering the arguments. He basically says it is a me-too motion that was filed too late while Apple had filed their request in a timely manner:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1302100/show_temp.pdf

Before this case the undersigned thought the proposition unremarkable that courts set schedules and parties follow them.

...

And so papers are filed hours before hearings rather than the days provided by local rule. Hearings themselves are presented on shortened rather than standard time, at least six times before the undersigned alone. Now the court is presented with a motion for an adverse jury instruction based on facts known to the moving party months and months ago in the middle of trial. And the justification for this latest demand outside of any rationale notion of compliance with the schedule of this case? The fact that a timely motion brought by the other side yielded an instruction that could harm the moving party’s chances with the jury, and “fairness” somehow demands a similar instruction as to both parties.

Except that it doesn’t. There is nothing at all unfair about denying relief to one party but not the other when the one but not the other springs into action long after any rational person would say it could have done so. The court has bent itself into a pretzel accommodating the scheduling challenges of this case. But at some point the accommodation must end, lest the hundreds of other parties in civil rights, Social Security, and other cases also presently before the undersigned and presiding judge might reasonably ask: what makes the parties in this patent case so special? We are at that point in this case, and perhaps beyond. And so as a matter alone of this court’s well- recognized discretion to hold parties to a schedule and insist upon requests that are timely, Samsung’s motion is DENIED.
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/inafried/statuses/236245509034086401
Time totals- #Apple has used 21:07 with 3 hours 53 minutes left for tomorrow. #Samsung has used 24:14 and has 46 minutes letf.
Click to expand...

gcubed said:
its much more common in civil cases but i'm pretty sure they can't be denied cross examining a witness, no matter the time
Click to expand...

She'll deny them time if they have gone over the limit.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-...t-trial-live-blog-thursday-damages-overstated

Givargis done testifying, Samsung again does not cross-examine, citing shortage of time. Apparently, Samsung trying to build into record fact that judge has restricted their ability to cross through time limits, but doubt appeals court will have much sympathy for that argument for either side.

Koh, in fact, rattles off how many minutes each side had used for cross-examination. Samsung in fact spent more time cross-examining witnesses than Apple spent on its witnesses, she notes. So they sacrificed putting witnesses on the stand. "Samsung made a choice," the judge said.

Translation of Judge Koh's message to Samsung: don't whine about time anymore.
Click to expand...
 
So Apple is going to be able to just overload the jury with endless pro-Apple tesitmony before they enter deliberations and Samsung ran out of time to even do any useful rebuttal? How did Samsung mis-manage their time like that?
 
unsure why the site or Florian is still at all relevant anymore. A paid shill should not be given any kind of time or attention
 
gcubed said:
unsure why the site or Florian is still at all relevant anymore. A paid shill should not be given any kind of time or attention
Click to expand...
Do you have another site with information on late night Sunday orders by Koh? Knowing all sources of news and commentary is useful. Would you avoid reading briefs written by Apple lawyers, things posted on the Google blog, or employees of cable networks regarding FCC investigations/reviews of said cable networks?
 
numble said:
Do you have another site with information on late night Sunday orders by Koh? Knowing all sources of news and commentary is useful. Would you avoid reading briefs written by Apple lawyers, things posted on the Google blog, or employees of cable networks regarding FCC investigations/reviews of said cable networks?
Click to expand...

it was more a general criticism of the site and FM still being used as a "legal expert" not a "paid legal spokesman for MS and Oracle"
 
gcubed said:
it was more a general criticism of the site and FM still being used as a "legal expert" not a "paid legal spokesman for MS and Oracle"
Click to expand...
The only sites reporting the news so far are sites that refer back to his site as the source. I think it's a significant development, because Grewal's one-sided, strongly worded adverse jury instruction is replaced by Koh's softly worded dual-sided adverse jury instruction.
 
numble said:
The only sites reporting the news so far are sites that refer back to his site as the source. I think it's a significant development, because Grewal's one-sided, strongly worded adverse jury instruction is replaced by Koh's softly worded dual-sided adverse jury instruction.
Click to expand...

yes, i couldn't find it anywhere else, i agree its a significant development and news is still news.

How long is deliberation?
 
gcubed said:
yes, i couldn't find it anywhere else, i agree its a significant development and news is still news.

How long is deliberation?
Click to expand...
They give closing arguments and jury instructions tomorrow, and then they talk until they get an unanimous verdict.*

*Unless they settle tonight.
 
numble said:
They give closing arguments and jury instructions tomorrow, and then they talk until they get an unanimous verdict.*

*Unless they settle tonight.
Click to expand...

i would have assumed everything else was in the interest of not wasting time. I would have figured Koh wanted everything as fast as possible
 
numble said:
The only sites reporting the news so far are sites that refer back to his site as the source. I think it's a significant development, because Grewal's one-sided, strongly worded adverse jury instruction is replaced by Koh's softly worded dual-sided adverse jury instruction.
Click to expand...

Why would you trust a piece of news whose sole source was FOSS?
 
iapetus said:
For what it's worth, Groklaw reports that there will now be no adverse inference jury instructions.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the latest change, after arguments Monday morning.

Groklaw's commentary on the situation is ridiculous, though. She predicted a harsher adverse jury instruction against Apple. Judge Grewal granted one against Samsung, and denied one against Apple. Koh reversed, and imposed very soft adverse jury instructions on both. Both parties agreed to drop the matter.

Her characterization of the whole situation is just extremely incorrect, especially her saying FOSS brlieving the order was final--he clearly said it was subject to Monday arguments, which I even said in my post--and she ironically says she is trying to get rid of FUD in the same article.
 
numble said:
Yes, that's the latest change, after arguments Monday morning.

Groklaw's commentary on the situation is ridiculous, though. She predicted a harsher adverse jury instruction against Apple. Judge Grewal granted one against Samsung, and denied one against Apple. Koh reversed, and imposed very soft adverse jury instructions on both. Both parties agreed to drop the matter.

Her characterization of the whole situation is just extremely incorrect, and she ironically says she is trying to get rid of FUD in the same article.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the news that the adverse jury instructions that Koh imposed was "soft"?
 
Greyface said:
Great, can you explain it in non legal speech?

Congrats! Thought you were still studying in China
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly evident if you compare the two yourself. Grewal tells the jury to presume that Samsung destroyed evidence that they should presume was favorable to Apple.

Grewal:
Samsung has failed to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence for Apple’s use in this litigation. This is known as the “spoliation of evidence.”

I instruct you, as a matter of law, that Samsung failed to preserve evidence after its duty to preserve arose. This failure resulted from its failure to perform its discovery obligations.

You also may presume that Apple has met its burden of proving the following two elements by a preponderance of the evidence: first, that relevant evidence was destroyed after the duty to preserve arose. Evidence is relevant if it would have clarified a fact at issue in the trial and otherwise would naturally have been introduced into evidence; and second, the lost evidence was favorable to Apple.

Whether this finding is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide. You may choose to find it determinative, somewhat determinative, or not at all determinative in reaching your verdict.
Click to expand...

Koh:
"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
Click to expand...
 
numble said:
Yes, that's the latest change, after arguments Monday morning.

Groklaw's commentary on the situation is ridiculous, though. She predicted a harsher adverse jury instruction against Apple. Judge Grewal granted one against Samsung, and denied one against Apple. Koh reversed, and imposed very soft adverse jury instructions on both. Both parties agreed to drop the matter.

Her characterization of the whole situation is just extremely incorrect, especially her saying FOSS brlieving the order was final--he clearly said it was subject to Monday arguments, which I even said in my post--and she ironically says she is trying to get rid of FUD in the same article.
Click to expand...

But Groklaw was right? Apple was to be given a harsher instruction, and so called out on and given equal wording. Apple was going to be mentioned in failure to preserve evidence. So Apple dropped it?

Did this not happen?
 
tfur said:
But Groklaw was right? Apple was to be given a harsher instruction, and so called out on and given equal wording. Apple was going to be mentioned in failure to preserve evidence. So Apple dropped it?

Did this not happen?
Click to expand...
Samsung asked for a harsher jury instruction against Apple (including a finding of willful destruction), and asked that the instruction against Samsung be eliminated. Groklaw only explained why Samsung sought a de novo review, including preserving the matter for appeal.

What happened with the de novo review application was that Judge Grewal did not remove the instruction against Samsung, and did not grant an instruction against Apple.

I don't know what you mean by, "Apple was to be given a harsher instruction, and so called out on and given equal wording."

Koh overruled 2 decisions by Judge Grewal at literally the last minute. Both sides consented to dropping the matter. Groklaw is incorrect in saying that it was Apple that dropped it:

http://allthingsd.com/20120821/apple-samsung-jury-wont-hear-about-missing-evidence/?mod=googlenews
Rather than see that happen, and the integrity of both companies impugned in court, Apple and Samsung proposed that Koh refrain from giving the jury any Adverse Inference instruction at all. And she agreed.
Click to expand...

Groklaw:
And it was Apple that dropped it, when the judge gave them a choice to drop it or get an equal wording against Apple.
Click to expand...

Groklaw also claimed FOSS patents thought that Koh's Sunday order was final, for some reason, even though FOSS clearly said it was subject to Monday argument:
Groklaw:
He wrote too soon, probably thinking that the judge's proposed order was final, missing the detail that the judge's proposed jury instruction was subject to a conference today.
Click to expand...
FOSS:
Apple's only chance is to make Judge Koh change mind at the Monday hearing, and that is going to be very difficult.
Click to expand...

I don't think Groklaw ever predicted that Koh would reverse Judge Grewal's two orders one day before the close of trial, and most commentary, even excluding FOSS, had been operating on the fact that those orders were binding.
 
numble said:
I don't know what you mean by, "Apple was to be given a harsher instruction, and so called out on and given equal wording."
Click to expand...


Before Monday, the jury was not going to be told about Apples' problem with retaining evidence. It was all in favor of Apple.

After Monday, it was going to be exposed as well, that Apple had problems retaining evidence.

Today, they are both set to equal, and nothing will be said about it.

As for the FOSS stuff. Florian is a dick, fraud and paid shill. I see no reason for anyone to try to defend this person. He also changes his blog with note.

As for Groklaw, they are right more often than not. They also have more experience than most reporting, since they have been doing this same thing for over a decade.
 
tfur said:
Before Monday, the jury was not going to be told about Apples' problem with retaining evidence. It was all in favor of Apple.

After Monday, it was going to be exposed as well, that Apple had problems retaining evidence.

Today, they are both set to equal, and nothing will be said about it.

As for the FOSS stuff. Florian is a dick, fraud and paid shill. I see no reason for anyone to try to defend this person. He also changes his blog with note.

As for Groklaw, they are right more often than not. They also have more experience than most reporting, since they have been doing this same thing for over a decade.
Click to expand...
I posted the link to FOSS pretty much before it was discussed on any other site, and I included in my post "unless Apple convinces Koh otherwise this morning." So I'm pretty sure he didn't add that note after Groklaw accused him of not knowing that it was subject to hearing on Monday.

I think you should judge each separate argument based on its content, the facts on hand, and one's own critical thinking instead of relying on reputation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple Event - 'Awe dropping' | Sept 9, 10am PT
2 3 4 5
236
2K
ReBurn replied
Apple to rename all of its operating systems
23
948
Drew1440 replied
  • Poll
Denzel washington VS Tom hanks
2
68
738
roosnam1980 replied
Tim Apple got stitched up the Courts
39
2K
winjer replied
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman
2
52
879
ReBurn replied
Top Bottom