Misunderstanding of Prior Art May Have Led to Apple-Samsung Verdict 503
One of the interesting tidbits that came out of last week's billion-dollar verdict in Apple v. Samsung was that the jury's foreman, a patent holder himself, was instrumental in leading the other members through the various complicated infringement claims. Now, Groklaw analyzes an interview the man gave with Bloomberg News (video), in which his statements reveal a basic misunderstanding of what qualifies as prior art. Quoting Groklaw:
"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. It doesn't have to run at all. It can be words on a piece of paper. (If you don't believe little old me, here's a lawyer noticing the video too now.) ... The foreman, in answering criticisms, says that the jury paid close attention to the jury instructions. But looking at this one, did they? I'm sure they meant to, and I'm also sure they did their best according to what they understood. But this was an error, and it's one I don't think the judge can ignore, if anyone brings it to her attention."
split. (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh, at this point I try not to follow these case too closely... while I hate software patents and think they need to be abolished, I find the reporting and oversimplification almost as bad...
This Works Both Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't this prior art argument apply to Samsung's device as well? If the iPhone processor isn't the same as Samsung uses, then Apple's software doesn't run that processor and no patent was violated.
Re:jury system a poor match for something so compl (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is having one so-called expert, and 11 laymen in the room. It should either be all experts or all laymen.
Re:Why all the butthurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Apple's biggest assets is their design, look, feel, etc (Trade dress). Did you expect apple to take it laying down?
Eh, Apple is getting screwed either way. Even if they win, they lose. Before this trial, consumers in the US mentally lumped Samsung in with Motorola, Sony, and a half-dozen other also-rans. Now Apple is claiming "Samsung copies our products!", "Consumers can't tell the difference!". The longer this case drags out, the more coverage it gets, and the more consumers are going to believe those claims through repetition.
Apple has rebranded Samsung to be in their league. Normally, you can't buy that kind of advertising at any price. Samsung got a bargain at $1B
Prior art misunderstandings (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course prior art was misunderstood. It usually is, including the misunderstanding that Groklaw is propagating. For the purposes of dismissing a patent, prior art does not just have to be something similar, but must be something that is, in whole or in part, exactly the same as what's claimed in the patent. If the patent claims a specific processor function that the prior art didn't have, it's not prior art!
Software is algorithms, and algorithms are mathematics. That's why they should never be allowed to be patented in the first place, which would have avoided all this Apple v. Samsung trial about bounceback anyway.
The algorithms are not patentable, but their assembly into a system is, just like a screw conveyor is not patentable, but its use in a new material feeder is.
Rule 50 (Score:5, Interesting)
This case is a prime candidate for a successful Rule 50 motion, which states essentially that in a jury trial, if a court finds that a jury would not have sufficient evidentiary basis to rule as it did, the judge may overrule the jury's decision or, alternately, vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial. The judge can't use it to impose his or her own opinion; it has to be a fairly clear-cut case in which the jury acted unreasonably or contrary to law. So, for instance, if a jury finds a criminal defendant not guilty and the judge thinks there was enough evidence to convict, that's too bad. In the Apple-Samsung case, though, there was a clear and articulated misapplication of the prior art standard, which causes the verdict to fail as a matter of law.
That is a good question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Use him for appeal (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're throwing out actual evidence that will ensure the jury reaches a flawed verdict, then you've completely fucked up your trial.
The purpose of a trial is not to see who can win a game of "Best lawyer", but to establish the truth. The further you get from establishing the truth in your courtroom because of the decisions you have made, the worse judge you objectively are.
This is a terrible, terrible, Judge.
Jury selection FAIL (Score:4, Interesting)
I was recently called to report for jury duty on a patent litigation trial at a US District Court. The patent involved "computer code" as the judge put it. Weeks before arriving, I filled out a questionnaire which included questions about my occupation, which I stated as Software Engineer.
As we went through jury selection, it quickly became clear that the attorneys wanted to state their case in their own way without anyone on the jury attempting to re-explain or translate for the others. Out of the first 14 jurors interviewed, only 1 person had had ANY experience with "computer code" (30 years ago in the Navy, and he mentioned COBOL). One side or the other threw that guy off the jury. We didn't get past Juror #15 before they had agreed on the jury pool. I was juror #28!
I can't believe that Samsung allowed this guy anywhere near the final jury. Well, unless there were 10 other patent trolls in the pool that they needed to get rid of before him.
Re:How was it not returned to? (Score:5, Interesting)
> What was the jury supposed to do other than to return to consider the item later? They had no choice, they HAD to consider it to arrive at a verdict.
They could have done the obvious thing: NOT SKIP IT.
As it stands, it sounds like they glossed over something because it seemed difficult. There is no taking that back. They refused to tackle the task with which they were entrusted head on. That casts doubt on the whole thing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
Well lets see, I've been in the industry for three decades and have read absolutely anything and everything about the case, and I hold or was responsible for guiding the process for hundreds of patents. I think the verdict is ridiculous. In fact, I think we wasted an awful lot of judicial time even hearing it. Then get back to actually inventing things that are clearly patented. Gestures and finger flicks aren't inventions.
While I might be egotistical, I'm also far better qualified than the bunch of neophytes that were packed into the jury box. I'm also able to form a pretty full opinion without sitting in the courtroom for three weeks. Shoot me.