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

Status
Not open for further replies.
iapetus said:
Doubly so if those people decide not to bother with jury instructions or double-checking their verdict so that they can get home for the weekend.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the mistakes they made certainly makes it seem like they just pulled some of that stuff out of their asses without really thinking it over thoroughly. Millions of dollar in damages for devices that don't actually infringe, really? Not a good thing.
 
RoadHazard said:
Yeah, the mistakes they made certainly makes it seem like they just pulled some of that stuff out of their asses without really thinking it over thoroughly. Millions of dollar in damages for devices that don't actually infringe, really? Not a good thing.
Click to expand...

lol It was a 700 question, 20 page verdict. I think a few mistakes are allowed.
 
$2m mistakes? No. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort required to get those right, your ability to decide on the questions of law is highly dubious.
 
iapetus said:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Holy. Fuck.

As always, if this is true, the jury's verdict needs throwing out now, before any appeal. Jurors stating outright that not only did they completely ignore the jury instructions, they actually went directly against them.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt that's sufficient. Nothing short of a confession that they just decided to toss a coin would convince a judge to throw a ruling out.
 
rezuth said:
Pro Samsung dude is being pro. Sounds interesting, wonder if anything will come from it.
Click to expand...

Who's the 'pro Samsung dude', out of interest? The quotes are from jurors (clearly not pro-Samsung), in an article by PJ (owns Apple kit, but not Samsung), posted by me (and you haven't heard vitriol until you've heard me talking about Samsung...)
 
Goldrush said:
Highly doubt that's sufficient. Nothing short of a confession that they just decided to toss a coin would convince a judge to throw a ruling out.
Click to expand...

The jury decided of its own accord to ignore the judge's instructions to them. If I were a judge, that would piss me the hell off.
 
I don't think Koh is tossing the verdict, but that appeal is coming regardless; and I think Samsung has a decent shot at reversing some shit in there.

I hope Google lends them some better lawyers.
 
iapetus said:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Holy. Fuck.

As always, if this is true, the jury's verdict needs throwing out now, before any appeal. Jurors stating outright that not only did they completely ignore the jury instructions, they actually went directly against them.
Click to expand...

Holy fucking shit!!

Groklaw said:
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...
Click to expand...

These asshole skipped the prior art debate?
 
googleplex said:
Holy fucking shit!!



These asshole skipped the prior art debate?
Click to expand...

Can a juror even use his past experiences (which may not even be true) to influence other the decision of other jurors?

Any idea what patents he holds? How did he even get on the jury or get the role of the foreman?
 
Key2001 said:
Can a juror even use his past experiences (which may not even be true) to influence other the decision of other jurors?

Any idea what patents he holds? How did he even get on the jury or get the role of the foreman?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything saying what a juror can or can't do to convince other jurors, but it is a bit surprising that "do you have a patent?" wasn't a question that both parties would have rejected a juror for.
 
maharg said:
I don't think there's anything saying what a juror can or can't do to convince other jurors, but it is a bit surprising that "do you have a patent?" wasn't a question that both parties would have rejected a juror for.
Click to expand...

So what do you mean? They should have asked this question?
 
Looks like Apple's lawyer is this guy..

1437b_Harvey_320.jpg
 
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...oid-os-says-google-samsung-releases-own-memo/

Statement from Google.

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that.
Click to expand...

Internal memo from Samsung.

On Friday, August 24, 2012, the jury verdict in our trial against Apple was announced at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The following is an internal memo that reflects Samsung's position regarding the verdict:
We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.
Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.
However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.
The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.
Click to expand...
 
“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”
Click to expand...

Yeah patent-guy sounds a little too eager to punish Samsung. His quotes seem to indicate an "us" (patent holders/Apple) vs. "them" (copiers/Samsung) attitude and some sort of god-given mission rather than a juryman.

Basically, the "need" here was not justice, clarity, fairness, determining validity of patents, tech issues, etc..., but rather a "need to do this for all of them?"
 
Alcibiades said:
Yeah patent-guy sounds a little too eager to punish Samsung. His quotes seem to indicate an "us" (patent holders/Apple) vs. "them" (copiers/Samsung) attitude and some sort of god-given mission rather than a juryman.

Basically, the "need" here was not justice, clarity, fairness, determining validity of patents, tech issues, etc..., but rather a "need to do this for all of them?"
Click to expand...

Before any major deliberations, they had already decided 7-2 in favor of validating the patent that had the highest chance of getting invalidated (due to the most time spent on arguing it was invalid based on prior art).

It's going to be very rare to see patents invalidated in these patent vs. patent trials, when both sides are putting up convincing, highly paid, highly credentialed professors to argue about the validity of their own patents.

By "need[ing] to do this for all of them," he's probably talking about going through a process with each patent to determine if the owner had sufficiently defended the validity of the patent.

You need to keep in mind that this jury also did not invalidate Samsung's patents for such things like "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode" or "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions." If they are going to say such patents are valid, it's a reach for them to say that bounceback and pinch to zoom are invalid.

And that's probably how Samsung got itself in trouble (along with making themselves bad on the documents regarding copying, not putting up senior staff as witnesses, etc.). Do you expect a jury to invalidate Apple's patents on pinch/tap to zoom and bounceback, when you're putting up experts to convince a jury that your own patents for "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode" and "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions" are valid?
 
If you do the math on the number of questions they had to answer and the time the deliberated, the most they possibly could have done is just vote on each question with no deliberation.

We're talking like 2 minutes per question. How the hell are you supposed to judge the evidence for even the most simple question of fact in 2 minutes?

That's not even counting the time needed to read and understand the 100 pages of jury instruction(which they clearly did not do).
 
iamblades said:
If you do the math on the number of questions they had to answer and the time the deliberated, the most they possibly could have done is just vote on each question with no deliberation.

We're talking like 2 minutes per question. How the hell are you supposed to judge the evidence for even the most simple question of fact in 2 minutes?

That's not even counting the time needed to read and understand the 100 pages of jury instruction(which they clearly did not do).
Click to expand...

They were read the jury instructions. That's really all that's required for jury instructions.

They are multiple questions on the same thing. For instance, if you decide that patent exhaustion applies to Samsung's valid FRAND patents (you believe that Samsung's license to Intel, where Apple bought its chips from, bars Samsung from pursuing claims to patents 516 and 941), you just answered 21 questions.
 
PJ and others are going crazy over the "slap on the wrist" comment, as well as going crazy over the damages figure (suggesting lack of basis), when she had clearly read the Reuters interview that she linked to:

what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?
Click to expand...

Here's part of the closing argument made by Apple:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ments-in-high-stakes-patent-case-live-blog/2/
“If you render judgment for Apple in this case, you will reaffirm the American patent system.” People in Silicon Valley will continue to make investments because they know their technology will be protected, he says.

If you award Apple damages, you will take away Samsung’s gains. “They are right. The world is watching. You will with your decision get to determine the rules for competition for a long time to come in this country.”

Samsung will win, he says, if you rule against Apple’s patents but also if “you compromise on damages..They will not change their way of operating if you slap them on the wrist,” McElhinny says. He thanks the jury as well. He’s done.
Click to expand...

Here's part of the closing from Samsung:


Verhoeven now turns to talk of damages. He says that he’s not suggesting that Samsung needs to pay damages, but nonetheless he needs to dissect Apple’s damages calculations. He is challenging Apple’s $2.75 billion damages claim (as determined by Apple expert Terry Musika). he notes that Musika was paid $1.75 million by Apple to come up with his damages claim.

“What did he do for that $1.75 million? He ignored costs. He calculated the revenues, but he ignored costs.” He says both Apple and Samsung deduct lots of costs to determine profits — “but Mr. Musika didn’t.” He says that Apple’s expert Wagner did deduct cost of sales, advertising costs, R&D costs and allocated operating costs. But that Musika did not and he “was wrong to do so.”

He says that Musika’s opinion on Samsung’s total profit is “too high…It’s just not reasonable.” (Again, Samsung profit and sales is a big part of the basis for Apple’s damages claim).
Click to expand...

And here's the jury foreman, from the article that PJ selectively quotes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825
However, Hogan said Apple's damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were "extraordinarily high," partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to.

FIGURING DAMAGES

Apple's damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apple's percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung.

Samsung's damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said.
Click to expand...

Despite the rhetoric, the damages are closer to what Samsung argued they should be, instead of what Apple argues they should be, both for amount of phones to be calculated (they didn't multiply by every phone sold, because they didn't think Apple would've sold that many phones) and the profit margin calculation. They actually did compromise on damages from what Apple argued, just not to go as low as Samsung asked them to.
 
numble said:
You need to keep in mind that this jury also did not invalidate Samsung's patents for such things like "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode" or "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions."
Click to expand...

And this is supposed to make us think they did a better job?

I guess the good news is that some of these ridiculous patents are going to be evaluated externally to the trial. What impact it has on this case if they're later ruled invalid I'm not sure. Anyone?
 
The more the members of this jury talk, the more likely a mistrial will be declared. Nobody knows what really went on during deliberations but the jurors' accounts of it would make The Runaway Jury look like a plausible account of serious deliberations by a jury.
 
iapetus said:
And this is supposed to make us think they did a better job?
Click to expand...

They can only respond to what the lawyers put in front of them. You are rarely going to see patents invalidated in these patent vs. patent cases.

Do you think the jury will believe Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents deserve to be invalidated, when in the next breath, Samsung is spending millions of dollars to put up multiple highly paid, highly credentialed professors to tell the jury that Samsung's patents for "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode (on a mobile device)" and "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions" are valid?
 
numble said:
They can only respond to what the lawyers put in front of them. You are rarely going to see patents invalidated in these patent vs. patent cases.

Do you think the jury will believe Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents deserve to be invalidated, when in the next breath, Samsung is spending millions of dollars to put up multiple highly paid, highly credentialed professors to tell the jury that Samsung's patents for "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode (on a mobile device)" and "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions" are valid?
Click to expand...

There's always the option of accepting some of Samsung's arguments and not others. Just as you should accept some of Apple's arguments and not others. It's not exactly difficult to work out that both sides are going to want contradictory things, and that some of what they're saying will be valid and some won't.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
The more the members of this jury talk, the more likely a mistrial will be declared. Nobody knows what really went on during deliberations but the jurors' accounts of it would make The Runaway Jury look like a plausible account of serious deliberations by a jury.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't believe some of the quotes from the jury, and have to reiterate the frustration several other posters have given in response. The jury (or at least that Hogan customer) seem wholly unqualified to decide this case. It's bizarre that the American court system even allows cases like this to be tried by jury.
 
iapetus said:
There's always the option of accepting some of Samsung's arguments and not others. Just as you should accept some of Apple's arguments and not others. It's not exactly difficult to work out that both sides are going to want contradictory things, and that some of what they're saying will be valid and some won't.
Click to expand...

There is that option, but none of the experts they're putting up there are encouraging them to split the baby or put a pox on both houses. They aren't putting Richard Stallman up there, they're spending millions of dollars on these experts for a reason--they can convince the juries that their party's software patents are valid.

And Samsung didn't put up the best case for invalidity probably because they don't want to look like hypocrites when arguing about the validity of their patents. They argued on how some table top projector based devices were prior art, or how certain Samsung devices weren't actually infringing because they differed in specific instances, even misleading arguments like this one:
During cross-examination, Samsung's attorney asked Singh if any Samsung devices could scroll using two fingers. Singh replied they did not, after which the attorney presented another video which he claimed showed just such a behavior. However, the video was of a user moving their hand up the device while pinching and zooming with two fingers at the same time. Singh had to correct the attorney — who grew increasingly flustered during the exchange — that the action was in fact not a discrete scroll as he'd represented to the jury and the courtroom.
Click to expand...
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3233870/samsung-mislead-jury-apple-patent-experts-trial

IIRC they weren't arguing about obviousness or the fact that it's a touchscreen/mobile device doesn't mean it should deserve a separate patent, because that would simply be used against them when they present arguments about the validity of their patents for "emailing a photo on a mobile device" or "listening to music in the background on a mobile device."
 
numble said:
They can only respond to what the lawyers put in front of them. You are rarely going to see patents invalidated in these patent vs. patent cases.

Do you think the jury will believe Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents deserve to be invalidated, when in the next breath, Samsung is spending millions of dollars to put up multiple highly paid, highly credentialed professors to tell the jury that Samsung's patents for "sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode (on a mobile device)" and "ability to play music in the background on a mobile device while performing other functions" are valid?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying this? It happens all the time.

Many, many patents are granted which don't hold up under scrutiny. It's already been pointed out how pinch-to-zoom is likely to be revoked, probably due to disclosures such as this which were likely not found during the prior art search at the USPTO.
 
Cumpkin Hubris said:
Why do you keep saying this? It happens all the time.

Many, many patents are granted which don't hold up under scrutiny. It's already been pointed out how pinch-to-zoom is likely to be revoked, probably due to disclosures such as this which were likely not found during the prior art search at the USPTO.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I'm talking about patent vs. patent cases that go before a jury.
 
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
945
Drew1440 replied
  • Poll
Denzel washington VS Tom hanks
2
68
726
roosnam1980 replied
Tim Apple got stitched up the Courts
39
2K
winjer replied
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman
2
52
863
ReBurn replied
Top Bottom