Samsung slams Apple patent jury, wants new trial in US Samsung wants a new patent trial with Apple in the US, claiming the jury couldn't and shouldn't have come to its $1.05bn verdict for its iPhone-maker rival. The South Korean firm's filing with the court is partially redacted, but the section that's been blacked out is likely to claim jury misconduct, as previous cases cited to …
"To be honest I don't think the US deserve any choice. They should all be forced to use (and pay for) iphones.
Condemn them to their isolationism, and just let the rest of the planet get on with things."
Isolationism? You may want to check your dictionary. But if that is what you want then fine. We'll just be taking Apple, Microsoft, Google, Wall Street, Hollywood, and the Internet with us thank you very much. Assuming your society doesn't collapse from the overnight loss of these things that the "terrible and evil 'Mericans" made, enjoy the most boring modern existence imaginable. Cheers.
@Trokair 1
If we are playing the "what if, in an alternate reality" game...
You seem to think that those companies would survive the loss of a huge portion of their customer base. Or do you think that the bulk of their profits come from US citizens? Even if they did manage to wriggle out of collapse do you honestly think they wouldn't try to move out of the USA so they could...you know...sell the most products?
You can keep your Apple, Microsoft, Google, Wall Street and Hollywood thank you very much.
I'm not sure how you plan to take the internet away though. All it'd take is the creation of a new DNS root and the USA would have no control over the internet except that which is physically located within its borders.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Surprise surprise a verdict that does against them HAD to be biased. If they don't like doing business in the US well there is one option open to them... DONT."
I think Apple, amongst other companies, would be rather vocal in complaining if Samsung suddenly stopped doing business in the US. Given that it would render their devices bricks until they could find a new supplier.
Oh and US companies would have to violate lots of patents because they couldn't license them from Samsung's portfolio. Violating patents is bad, right?
""Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it... (I) laid it out for them," he said."
So they had an amateur patent lawyer on the jury who regarded his oath as a juror to be a minor irrelevance - according to the contrast between his signed promise/oath when he became a juror and his own words in the aftermath.
Furthermore, I do not feel that it is going too far to wonder if his experience as a patent holder might perhaps be thought to have had some influence on his attitudes with regard to a US company complaining that a foreign company was ripping them off - particularly such a famous US company as the one involved. Given that he was the foreman of the jury and other jurors have said that he provided them with "guidance" and he has admitted that himself, it is clear that there is a serious risk that he was steering a jury who were virtually drowning in that large and complex trial towards the verdict he preferred.
Furthermore, somewhere on Groklaw there is a hilarious explanation given by Hogan as to how he reasoned that the Apple software patents were valid, demonstrating in vivid and brain-aching detail that he doesn't understand the first faintest detail of how software is developed. In essence, he was saying that for the patent to be invalid, the prior art must be byte for byte compatible with the new development, so that you could take the older program and run it without recompilation on the newer hardware.
Wait, what? Is he fucking kidding?
GJC
It is of course for precisely that reason that jurors in such complex cases are given a very clear instruction which can be roughly summed up as "if you need any guidance on points of/interpretation of the law ask the Judge". It has to be that way because (as you have indicated) it you get a saloon bar loudmouth/fast talker in a complex case where the jury are struggling you end up with this kind of mess. The guy's fearless belief in his own "perspicacity" and "knowledge" are exactly the kind of thing that can totally fuck up any chance of a rational result from a lay jury. His overweening ignorance remarkable self-confidence led him to utterly disregard the clear promise/oath he had signed as a jury member and the sheer complexity of the trial that the rest of the jury were drowning in led them to accept his dubious leadership when they should (given that they had signed the same promise) have told him to shut the fuck and, if necessary, complained about his behaviour to the Judge.
My guess is (and I admit it is a guess) that they were so intimidated by the avalanche of evidence and decisions required of them that they were only too grateful that somebody appeared to know what they were doing. It takes some self-confidence to insist on going back into court in order to ask for guidance from the judge - and risk feeling that you have made a complete fool of yourself in a very public fashion, a feeling that is very intimidating for many people when they are being asked to cope with something as complex as the arguments presented at this trial.
The odds are that Hogan formed an opinion early on - even had one before being seated. He then argued that opinion to the jury until they caved. Since he has his personal "experience," he felt entitled to an opinion. The jury probably wanted to go home, and also, after "Judge Lucy's" displays of temper, were actually afraid to ask for guidance from her. No telling whether she would rip them a new one, or not. Of course they also wanted out of the jury chamber. So after Hogan offers what seems like an "informed" and reasoned opinon, they said, "fine, whatever you say. Let's go have a beer."
That is highly likely IMO. A jury in that situation need to feel that the judge is sympathetic to the highly onerous task they have been faced with. It is of the first importance that the judge makes it clear that he/she not only welcomes such questions from the jury but regards it as part of the jury's job to pose them such that the jury-members feel reassured that the judge is supportive. If they are however drowning in a complex case, are also faced with potential public humiliation at the hands of a "bad tempered beak" and have a saloon bar know-all in the jury room one ends up with the kind of situation one sees here.
If you read stuff in say, ZDNet or some other blogs you might get the impression that the verdict is final and won't be changed, and Apple has swept all before it. Browsing on such sites gives me the impression that they are so bemused by Apple that they really can't see that there might be flaws in Apple's case and that Samsung might just be right in what they say about the design patents and so on.
Groklaw seems to have a more balanced view, unless of course you still believe that PJ is the product of a conspiracy to promote the interests of IBM etc. There, PJ and her colleagues say that until the appeals, requests for a retrial etc are heard and judgement given things are still in the balance.
I'm sure that Apple will be wishing that jury foreman Hogan had kept his fat mouth shut and not given Samsung the ammunition he has. Still, we shall see, a US court might be reluctant to go against Apple especially as it is sited only a few miles away from Apple's HQ.
Once other members of the jury had started to speak in public about the case (as they inevitably would, especially given that the press would certainly be pursuing them for interviews) it did not matter whether he had opened his mouth or not. In fact, once the foreman of the jury had disregarded his oath as a juror within the jury room during the course of the trial in the blatant way that this guy by his own admission did, then the case for ruling a mistrial was always going to become known and Samsung's lawyers would be "on the case" (so to speak :)). The verdict in this trial appears (with the wisdom of hindsight, natch) in practice to have been a ticking bomb ever since it was delivered - the issue now is, in whose backyard the blast craters are going to end up.
Yeah, especially the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. They have some good judges and honest juries who will help any patent owner enforce his IP rights with no questions asked. You can't find another bunch of patent-friendly people than these. Just by filing there for patent infringement you have about 90% chance to win no matter how good is your patent. Samsung should also counter-sue there too.
1: AFAIK, in the UK it is illegal for the jury to discuss their deliberations with anyone, even after the trial. Is this not the case in the USA?
2: People talk about the expense of lawyers, understandably. Are the lawyers and legal teams involved actually the long term employees of Apple and Samsung? (In which case the marginal costs are travel, accomodation, any court administration charges, etc.)
According to the instructions I was given back in May whilst on a Jury, you are right I'm still not allowed to talk about the deliberations part of the trials I was on. We had to re-read the judge's instructions a few times to keep us on track otherwise personal opinion would have leaked into our verdict, even though it was the same at least we reached it for the right reasons rather than opinionated reasons, I think there is a big difference.
Opinionated... Google jury nullification... You can disregard instructions... As I would if I was ever a juror on one of those heart wrenching murder case that was assisted suicide for some poor locked in person who had expressed an opinion.
But they try to filter out such contrarians on jury selection.
Re #1, I,m pretty sure that after the trial any restriction is up to the judge. It would likely have a great deal to do with whether the judge imagined there was going to be an appeal and anxious they were to avoid a reversal. The jury's conduct is really the judge's responsibility. In the US you are enjoined not to discuss the case with ANYONE while the trial is on, and not to discuss it even with fellow jurors outside the jury chamber.
Normally, walking out of a trial after the verdict is rendered, the prosecution and defense (in criminal trials) are liable to be lurking in the hall, hoping to button hole jurors to find out why they won or lost the verdict. I dodged my chance. I couldn't see telling the prosecution that they seriously weakened any case they had by worrying about how one of the defendants dressed, and being inconsistent about what the well-dressed cock-fight viewer would wear. Likewise pointing out to one of the defense attorneys that it was not his fault that his client was exonerated, having literally put (incriminating) words into his defendant's mouth and being totally unable to get the client's name right even once, and indeed, that the evidence that exonerated his client was from the lawyer whose client was convicted seemed pointless.
This whole trial was a mess from the outset and should have been dismissed from the outset. Sure, Samsung took a lot of inspiration from Apple's design and processes, just like Apple did from other designers and manufacturers. But to say they copied them is just plain ignorant. So why should Samsung pay for something they didn't do?
" Sure, Samsung took a lot of inspiration from Apple's design and processes, just like Apple did from other designers and manufacturers."
I read in an article here about the case that the first thing Apple did was buy a load of different phones and break them down to see exactly how they worked both on software and hardware.
They then used this to come up with a baseline for the iPhone, next they went through the design etc process obviously watching the newer handsets that came to market so as to ensure they didn't leave anything out.
This is ok in their view as they didn't "copy" others however anyone who looked at the iPhone and did the same as they had are evil nasty copiers who should be find gazillions and banned from selling their phones.
Samsung deserve to have a retrial and it should take place as soon as possible and be allowed to accept as much evidence as each side wants to submit. On top of that firstly all bans etc against Samsung should be dropped and they should need to place say 2 Billion with the courts in case they lose but before any of this there should be a case to decide is any of the patents either side are claiming are in fact patent-able or if they should be denied, once that is done we can then get down to a case with a fair result for the winner.
What the US needs more than anything at the moment is a court to be set up with experts who can look at disputed patents and decide quickly if they are ok or not before so much time and money is wasted in court cases. The crazyness is shown up where Samsung have a case with Apple for 8 patents infringed and that is not due to go to court until March 2014, thats 18 months.........
"Pay up and move on."
Why should they, when the jury have been dumb enough to repeatedly mouth off about how they totally fucked up the process of delivering a fair and impartial judgement, and clearly disregarded instructions.
Even if you are willing to disregard and take with a pinch of salt the concept of bias prior to trial, and even if you respect some of their judgements, the jury still blatantly ignore due process.
Foreman was a tech patent holder himself, everyone looked to him for constant advise (basically making it a one man jury), and his interpretation of prior art was fatally flawed, despite being clearly explained in the jury notes... He also believed they didn't need to question the validity of patents, when again the jury notes said they should have.
If this doesn't go to retrial, then it only further highlights how messed up the US legal system is.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120904190933195
and
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
It's actually impossible to have a fair jury trial in this case.
Clearly the information is of a technical matter, so someone needs to technically literate to understand it, however being so instantly make you biased one ware or another, as it's guaranteed you will have read about the trial online (or offline) somewhere in the media, with it's own biased spin on the trial, depending upon which advertiser they are keeping sweet.
In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor.
The jury was fatally flawed, no the Jury was brain dead. by Hogan's logic crApple software wont run on a samsung phone therefore there is no prior art and no IP infringement (by crApple).
How brain dead do you have to be not to also conclude that since samsung software wont run on a crApple phone that therefore there is no prior art and no IP infringement (by samsung).
Or did everybody on the jury just think "Oh will this effing idiot ever shut-up, I'll just agree with him or I'll never get out of here"
"AND then Android has to keep up with iOS and Windows Phone as well."
This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have seen today, where please tell does Apple have anything that Android is trying to keep up with ?
Don't bother with the UI, thats 4 years old and was never going to be copied by Android, so come on anti up.
As to Windows, we have to wait to see just what Windows Phone 8 and 7.8 for older handsets offers, once again ignore the UI and where is it better?
I say ignore the UI as that's a purely personal choice issue on the basis of what you like better to use, ie Apples easy to use for anyone, Windows tiles and its compatibility with new windows for desktop/laptop or Android with widgets etc and much more configurable home screen.
You don't understand, do you? Apple went after Samsung as they are a real threat to Apple's dominance. They outsell Apple in many markets. Recent action by Apple seems to indicate they want just about every Samsung phone and tablet banning. This would give them a backdoor ban on the SGS3, which is giving the iPhone a run for its money. Apple didn't go after that phone at trial, as all the publicity surrounding the trial would centre on the iPhone v SGS3 comparisons, and side by side photos of the two are not something Apple wants plastered all over the world, as to many, the SGS3 makes the iPhone 4S look dated.
Others on here can see that, should Apple prevail, they will go after HTC, Motorola, Sony et al. and will not stop until they are the only phone on sale in the USA.
If you think that it's a good idea to sit back and let that happen, you are a complete fool.
"Lot of Samsung employees / fandroids on here. just wait until HTC, Motorola or Asus come out with the next 'best' Android handset and you will drop Sammy like a pile of warm .... well you know."
I have an HTC One not a Samsung as its nearly as good spec wise, but has sense on it as I prefer that.
As an Android user I am not stuck with just the one supplier but have a choice of good handsets from the Huawei Ascend G300 (£100 or £60 at Tesco if you can find one) right up to the top of the line S3 etc, Windows users will have the same choice of budget to high end phones on the OS of their choice, Apple users have on one choice, the iPhone, and any of them you can buy are at premium prices with lower specs than top end Androids and Windows phones (Using the new ones with Windows Phone 8 not the older ones).
"Lot of Samsung employees / fandroids on here. just wait until HTC, Motorola or Asus..."
I don't believe Samsung really has dedicated fans, in the same way as Apple. The Android customer is a more liquid creature than the Apple customer and seems to hold no brand loyalty; instead leaping to whatever manufacturer's handset is leading the field at time-of-purchase.
Apple's fans are more dyed-in-the-wool because the platform requires them to be in order to reap the best benefits.
Saying there are a lot of Samsung employees on here is frankly a bit hilarious. Not everyone who disagrees with your choices when it comes to personal communications has to be the paid employee of a rival company, FYI. What you stated is border-line conspiracy theory.
Marked down for irrelevance.
This is not about Android, it is about trying to manipulate the mess that is the US patent system to hinder competition.
It doesn't matter that it's Samsung in the frame just now. Apple is just trying to spike their competitors' guns, and have picked on Samsung, any other company would probably have done just as well.
"just wait until HTC, Motorola or Asus come out with the next 'best' Android handset and you will drop Sammy like a pile of warm .... well you know."
There seems to be a point here that you are missing.
My last phone was not a Samsung. Nor the phone before that, nor the phone before that (etc). In fact, my current phone - the GS3 - is the first Samsung phone I have owned. (From memory, FWIW, I think the only Samsung branded device I've owned before - and still own - is my printer, with which I am very happy).
When my current phone contract runs out (or sooner if I decide to buy one outright - I've gone down that road before), the decision as to what phone replaces it won't be down to who the manufacturer is, it will be down to the specifications of the phone itself, and how closely they suit my requirements. That might be a Samsung phone. That might be a HTC phone. And so on. I don't care who makes the phone - it isn't important to me. It will not, therefore, be a case of "dropping" Samsung, as if I'm a long-time Samsung-only user/fan.
And I suspect the true is most of the other people who make pro-Samsung/Anti-Apple comments on forums like this.
That is precisely the why most Android users choose Android. The market place is a dynamic competitive one. Few people buy a Samsung phone because its a Samsung phone. The decision tends to be on the basis that on the day they go to the shop the Samsung phone is the one that appears to best suit their needs. Tomorrow the answer might well be different. That is competition and that is what we want.
Apple's customers don't have such an easy option to change. Sure they can buy something different, but it means losing what they've built up in the Apple portfolio. Apple's products aren't going to evolve at the rate of the Android world. They don't have the same level of competition.
Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Samsung had brought out a new model with a mapping application was so obviously worse than what was there before and the SW on all its competitors. They'd get killed in the market place and they'd deserve the commercial kicking they'd get.
The whole point of an environment like Android (or even M$phone) is choice. You don't have to worry about one vendor always having the right product for you at the time you need.
What I want is open competition. A war between suppliers that is fought out in the market place and not in the court room.
This leads to better products and better pricing.
Monopolies only ever help share holders.
This post has been deleted by its author
As AC said, it could go all the way to the USSC. Patents are federal law, so federal courts hear the case. Next step is likely the 9th Circuit. The real problem in the US is the moronic decision to allow software patents. Physical designs have always been patentable. There were something like a thousand patents for household electric wiring during the 1920s and '30s that all came down to ceramic knobs and tubes. Tiny changes in appearance with terminally weak explanations of why the change made the insulator work better were granted patents. Software is worse.
Remember that the trial was not about the validity of the patent system. It was about, given the patent system, did Samsung knowingly and willingly violate existing patents?
While I agree that the patent system needs fixing, with the first step being that all patent trolls and their lawyers be turned into food for abused dogs, that was not the issue at hand. There was an e-mail trail where Samsung copied the designs; Google told them their designs were too close to Apple's and needed to be changed, and IIRC even MicroSoft told Samsung the same thing. Samsung ignored this advise and continued with their designs.
Now, you can rail against the patent system, and I wouldn't say you were wrong. BUT, given the system, would you say Samsung's behavior was wise?
It was as wise as Apple's. There is no effective distinction in method. One of the interesting aspects of jury trials is that the judge will tell you that he/she will explain the law. The jury is to determine the facts based upon the evidence. What happens though occasionally, is that the jury decides "that law is stupid," and comes to a verdict no one anticipates (they won't actually SAY the decision was based upon the stupidity of the law). If the judge silently agrees - and sometimes even the prosecution - that is the end of the case.
The jury screwed up royally, which means that the case will likely have to be re-tried. An appeal would have to follow a "just decision" by an honest jury. So, first thing will be, the appelate court clobbers the decision and calls for a re-trial, but otherwise doesn't consider the case or the relevant law. So if you are right, Judge Koh screwed up by the numbers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
