b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 849010 | Random

This is a link post Interesting analysis of juror comments in the Apple / Samsung legal money-spunk
The site clearly has some bias, but on balance, it appears that the whole thing was a waste of time and will almost certainly go to appeal.
 (spunkyD, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:14, , Reply)
This is a normal post Well im in Mobile and this is gonna shake things up alot...

(Quinni TK421 Isn't at his command post on, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:26, , Reply)
This is a normal post You must be really small
to be in a mobile
 (I helped save b3ta! Fadgebadger (1 like), Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:42, , Reply)
This is a normal post unless it's Mobile, Alabama,
in which case he could be really large.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post For the worse
Unless you are an Apple shareholder, a lawyer or work in sw patents.
 (spunkyD, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post the 'shake things up alot' is one of my favourite Alots.
hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
 (I helped save b3ta! taters Bah weep grahnah weep ninibong, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 10:57, , Reply)
This is a normal post im writing wiv my talons

(I helped save b3ta! mookay immune to icons since, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 15:31, , Reply)
This is a normal post An absolute travesty of a decision by the look of it
Due process and impartiality appear to have been thrown in the nearest skip and set ablaze. I cannot see how this decision can be left to stand in its current form.
 (I helped save b3ta! wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 12:09, , Reply)
This is a normal post why are people treating this like a patent dispute?
this is the new cold war, an american jury is not going to rule in favour of a korean technology giant... this is about securing financial strength of export.

about retaining power over newwer economies...its war.. not patents.
 (DefyingDarwin Old, untalented and white,, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 12:15, , Reply)
This is a normal post Utter bollocks
he makes it sound like the jurors completely ignored all "prior art" but if you read the interview that he's referring to in full it's pretty clear that they said they got bogged down with the first device, along with it's supposed prior art, and moved on - only to go back to it later.

But yeah, it was always going to go to appeal whatever the outcome.
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 12:41, , Reply)
This is a normal post I wouldn't say 'clear'
It's a bit vague.

I'm definitely dubious about some of the reporting on this case.
 (spunkyD, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 13:32, , Reply)
This is a normal post I suppose that quote is a bit ambiguous, this one, less so...
"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."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html (paywall)
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Tue 28 Aug 2012, 18:38, , Reply)
This is a normal post I dunno
the whole thing has been bothering me a bit so I went and looked at some of the patents and they are very specific. Samsung's coping was rather intense. I'd say they should be ruled against in some capacity but the overall judgement seems rather shaky, and reading that article just makes it sound worse.

last thing, bounce back is annoying me. play bejeweled 2, make a invalid move and the pieces "bounce back" the game was out years before apple filed their patent.
 (MrPlankton, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 12:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post One of the questions is
were the patents valid in the first place?

It sounds as if some of the prior art evidence washed over, if not ignored. The decision was much too quick given the amount of questions the jury were given.
 (spunkyD, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 13:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post That's nonsense too (no offence)
It's not like the 700 questions were all completely separate and totally different.

The majority would've been...

"Did device A infringe of patent X"
"Did device A infringe of patent Y"
"Did device A infringe of patent Z"
"Did device B infringe of patent X" etc...

Once the jurors had satisfied themselves as to what exactly constituted a violation of one of the patents and whether it had been infringed, AND being as a number of the patents were for software design elements that were the same for many of the phones, they could just go down the list checking off infringing devices rather than having to go through the entire process for each of them.
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 14:05, , Reply)
This is a normal post Well if the jury had done such a good job of that,
how did they manage to award damages against Samsung for devices they had found were not in infringement? That's a pretty odd thing to happen if they'd done their jobs with due diligence.

It was a shoddy, rushed job.
 (I helped save b3ta! wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 14:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post One of the questions is
were the patents valid in the first place?

Also, it could be nonsense, but you can't categorically say "That's nonsense" unless you were in the room. Beyond what is being reported (assuming it is factual) you probably have as much of a clue as I do.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a massive lazy fuck up.
 (spunkyD, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 16:17, , Reply)
This is a normal post I can say it's nonsense because it's all there in the jury verdict form
www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1931.pdf
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 29 Aug 2012, 23:57, , Reply)