Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video 232
itwbennett (1594911) writes "U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh on Sunday overruled Samsung Electronics' objections to showing jurors a recent instructional video on how patents work, ahead of a trial in a patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The new video, called 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' was developed by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system. Samsung's objection is to several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used (and, by extension, seen as patentable and innovative)."
Blatant conflict of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blatant conflict of interest (Score:5, Funny)
He was a Buddhists. So he's smiling from his position as a factory line worker in an iPhone plant.
Re: (Score:3)
He was a Buddhists. So he's smiling from his position as a factory line worker in an iPhone plant.
I can't believe that got an +5 funny. As insightful a comment I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not insightful at all, unless the factories started employing 2-year old babies.
Re:Blatant conflict of interest (Score:5, Funny)
We have no guarantee you'd be reincarnated after your death, you might just as well be reincarnated years before. Who knows...
You might even run yourself over with your car ending your next life prematurely, so drive safe!
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that your vessel is reincarnated with a fragment of yourself. It makes you a bit dumber while your reincarnation is a moron.....
That explains why you run yourself over with a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that surprise you?
Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree its incredibly odd. I might stick with examples from over 25 years ago to avoid actual current patents as much as possible.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should watch it again. Forward the video to 2:54, where it narrates the following quotation:
During the lifetime of the patent, its disclosure may inspire other inventions.
As the quote is read, it shows an Appe II, then a Macbook. Immediately afterwards, it shows an iPad and an iPhone.
Re:Bad law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.
This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.
This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.
The problem is that we have two standards. One is the level of objectivity and reasonable thinking you should be able to expect of adult people. The second is the actual thinking you really get from adult people.
According to the first, it's truly a tempest in a teapot. According to the second, the cost of producing a video that would put to rest entirely such objections is negligable compared to the cost of the rest of the trial.
Branding, logos, and emotional situations associated with them are used in marketing for the precise reason that they bypass the former standard and appeal to the second. All major corporations engage in this. Apple is not in any way special and neither is Samsung. They do it because on the vast majority of soft-minded and easily influenced people, they work. Just consider, why would beer commercials show vibrant parties and bikini babes instead of telling you about how the beer was brewed and why it's better? Why do car commercials show families and small children to tug at your heartstrings instead of explaining why their engineering principles are sound? They want the second standard to prevail; it is much more malleable and easier to manipulate by far.
Re: (Score:2)
Branding, logos, and emotional situations associated with them are used in marketing for the precise reason that they bypass the former standard and appeal to the second.
I think you're overstating it. What you have said is certainly true to an extent. However going with the brand also means you get to go with a company you're somewhat familiar with.
I've had good experiences with Toyota cars, as have many other people (they are widely reported as reliable). This makes me biased towards that brand, and being
Re: (Score:2)
There's a smooth transition from a known company with a known reputation to hind brain reaction to the brand name. The former is entirely reasonable, because it's not worth my while spending 3 weeks evaluating a dishwasher before purchasing.
But I assume that at least you'd be on the market because your old dishwasher broke or something reasonable like that. Although it hardly takes three weeks to look up something like a Consumer Reports rating...
Anyway, the main purpose of much advertising and branding is to convince people to expend and possibly go into debt to buy shit they don't need. Many millions of dollars are poured into this effort for the simple reason that it works. It doesn't deserve to work, but it works.
Just ask yourself
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo.
So in other words, the jurors could easily assume they are Samsung products. :-)
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at 4:43. It is a perfect example of how I would design intentional bias.
Its a freeze frame with the apple logo and the text slowly imposed. "New, Useful, not obvious to one skilled in the field.".
The text frames the apple logo making part of the natural scan of the eyes. The word "one" hangs above the logo.
The Apple logo is the brightest item in image and placed at rule-of-thirds-intersection. No other image detail competes with the logo i.e. no human eyes, no coffee logo, no bag logo, no logo in the t-shirt, no logos in the background etc. Its form is clear despite the filter blurring out other features of the image.
Before and after the freeze-frame, the logo is shown and the direction of the inventor's gaze is always towards the apple logo.
A disgraceful infommercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the way you didn't look at the video before commenting.
Lets see how might the video not be biased. Oh, it has laptops and desktops from various manufacturers, *INCLUDING* Apple.
Gee, some how, that becomes bias?
What an idiot.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Funny)
But, the chances of grouping 12 imbeciles from a random selection is very improbable.
In this country?
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Samsung loses this decision, anyone want to guess what the basis of their appeal will be?
Was it not possible to come up with an instructional video that used fictional companies, inventions, etc. to instruct the viewers? Using Apple products -- or any other well-known vendor's produts -- as examples was not terribly bright.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even know why they bother turning up to Lucy Koh's trials in the first place, it's such a kangaroo court with her they've lost the second she's named as the judge.
She used to work as a lawyer for Apple for crying out loud and her courtroom is basically in Apple's back garden. Everything about cases involving her stink of stitch up.
Re: (Score:3)
Private Practice, Palo Alto, California, 2000-2008
From 2002 - 2008 that private practice was McDermott Will & Emery, for whom Apple was one of their clients who she worked for.
If you're going to scream shill you may want to check you're not wrong first. Unfortunately you are, so it's not surprising you opted to post anonymously to avoid such embarrassment that stems from failing to check facts.
Re: (Score:3)
It's bias to even allow such a case to happen in the backyard of an employer as large as Apple such that it's basically impossible to find a jury that doesn't have a direct, or indirect (i.e. family member employed by) connection to it in one way or another but apparently the US court system allows that too.
It's not a uniquely US problem though, remember The Pirate Bay vs. the music industry trial in Sweden? The judge there was a paid up member of a music industry lobby group. There was even an appeal on th
Re: (Score:2)
Does US law have a process for appealing against the choice of judge, based on the fact that she has consistently shown a clear bias towards Apple over the years?
Re:Bad law... (Score:4, Informative)
There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.
The only Apple product that is on-screen for any length of time, as well as being the only one with the logo clearly visible, is what appears to be a MacBook Pro being used by the actor portraying an inventor, but in no way was it suggested that the computer itself was the invention. Rather, the invention was some CAD diagram he had on his computer. Even so, the computer does get quite a bit of screen time with the shining Apple logo clearly visible.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.
This sounds so much like the product placements in movies, or the subliminal advertising experiments conducted decades ago. Whether these methods work or not, the intention is rather clear. Why do judges recuse themselves from trials in which they may have an interest? It is not because we have proof positive that the judge cannot maintain objectivity, but rather because in a fair trial we wish to eliminate such concerns entirely. The outcome and the precedent are simply too important.
Whatever you th
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.
The only Apple product that is on-screen for any length of time, as well as being the only one with the logo clearly visible, is what appears to be a MacBook Pro being used by the actor portraying an inventor, but in no way was it suggested that the computer itself was the invention. Rather, the invention was some CAD diagram he had on his computer. Even so, the computer does get quite a bit of screen time with the shining Apple logo clearly visible.
The phone and tablet shown in the video aren't particularly identifiable on their own, but shown immediately after an Apple laptop a viewer would automatically assume them to be an iPhone and iPad.
The trial is about whether Samsung violated Apple's patents on phones and tablets. The video leaves the impression that not only are Apple's patents valid, but they're such amazing examples of patents that the Federal Justice Center chose them out of countless possible inventions as examples.
I'm not sure you can get much more prejudicial than "you need to decide whether Apple's iPhone and iPad patents are valid, to understand the issue here's a video made by the courts that gives examples of good patents... like Apple's iPhone and iPad patents".
There was an earlier version of the video [youtube.com] that Samsung wanted them to use. I honestly don't understand the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Koh's previous decisions against Samsung. Denying perfectly good evidence, ignoring serious problems with jurors, and now this. It makes sense in that light.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).
I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).
I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.
Indeed. The court showing an Apple logo (or if they ever showed a Samsung label) for even a moment is a potential problem. The effect of a large, official establishment of some sort showing acceptance of such things, for even a moment, is not to be underestimated. It's the entire basis of all celebrity endorsements, for example.
"This major actor used Product X and says he likes it, therefore maybe I will like it too!" sounds silly and full of fallacies. But it works. There is no reason to assume tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt *you* could abstract yourself thoroughly enough to avoid any bias (you might attempt to compensate, but most people have no idea how much to compensate *by*). Jurors haven't switched their brains off any more than anybody else (although it might sometimes seem that way, "jury of your peers" does not guarantee them to be in the same intelligence range, for example). Despite this, everything from billboard ads to product placement in movies *does* have a measureable impact on people's opinion o
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents, in the process of a trial having specifically to do with a patent dispute involving Apple products. Are you really this ignorant of how the (average) human mind actually works and processes stimuli, to think that such portrayal of any same-branded products could not possibly have an adverse effect on how people judge the matter at hand? Samsung's objection is very relevant. Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.
Re:Bad law... (Score:4, Informative)
If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents
They're not. They show BOTH PCs and Macbooks in the video being used to perform activities related to patents, such as the inventor using the computer to work on the invention / prepare the application, and examiners to review the application.
The video doesn't show a smartphone being used. The only smartphone device I could see appears to be in the background on the table with the laptop the coffee, etc --- it's not being used as an 'example' of a patentable invention.
It is definitely the sort of thing you would see every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The only smartphone device I could see appears to be in the background on the table with the laptop the coffee, etc --- it's not being used as an 'example' of a patentable invention.
The problem is that the question for the jurors is if certain parts of Apple's smartphones are patentable. The video uses an Apple smartphone as an example of something that is patentable. It answers the question for the jury.
The video also shows an Apple logo very prominently. It uses Apple as an example of a company whose inventions meet the standards required for getting a patent. Again, it answers the question before the jury - are Apple's inventions patentable?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.
I think the Wright Brothers patent war with Glenn Curtis [ushistoryscene.com] would be a good start, and then this [std.com]...
Which is why Apple does product placement (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible? that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs, that's because Apple paid them. If you see a product logo, money changed hands. Otherwise it'll be something generic, or the logo will be removed, or what not. They don't give freebies on that sort of things because they can, and do, make a lot of money on it.
Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.
So why does Apple do this? Because they want to create the image in people's minds that apple are what all the cool, good looking, people (who actors in shows invariably are) use. It is an image thing with the brand. They want people to see it all the time, used by the hero characters. That leads people to form the opinion that they might want to own one.
They wouldn't spend the money doing it if they didn't believe it was effective.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not believe that. you see it on tv show credits, "promotional consideration provided by apple"
Re: (Score:2)
I do not believe that. you see it on tv show credits, "promotional consideration provided by apple"
Please provide one specific example. Thanks!
Re:Which is why Apple does product placement (Score:5, Informative)
The tv comedy 30rock always had apple products. You see their name in the credits, promotional consideration provided by Apple. See imdb for a listing of show credits
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt12... [imdb.com]
You're welcome!
Or as an example the other way (Score:2)
Look at Better Off Ted. There they use Macs, presumably for aesthetic reasons, but Apple didn't give them any money or products. So there's no logos. Where the Apple logo is, instead a big sticker of a different, generic, logo has been placed.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not believe that. you see it on tv show credits, "promotional consideration provided by apple"
This consideration could be lending them the hardware.
No, sorry (Score:2)
Maybe you didn't realize Apple did it, but they did it. Look further down this thread for one example. Hollywood is greedy and they know they can get money for product placement. So they charge for it. If nobody pays, they remove logos or make generic coverings. Sometimes it is even as simply as just putting tape over the logo (you'll see that on Mythbusters). They aren't going to hand out freebies. It isn't always money directly, sometimes it is discounts (or free) products, but Hollywood gets something fo
Re: (Score:2)
And as you imply this is precisely why using an "educational" video that includes Apple product placement - however accidental - to instruct jurors in a legal case where Apple is a litigant is just WRONG.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you delusional? If you don't think Samsung is out spending EVERYBODY right now, then you are nuts. They spend a considerable (http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/29/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies/) amount of money, on not only Ads, but "product placement" (Hello Academy Awards selfie) and other crap.
It may have been the case a few years ago that Apple out spent everyone on marketing, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible?
Also because Macs have that shiny futuristic-metal look, and the producers know they won't likely get sued for leaving the logo intact in a positive light. Just in case, it's a common practice to have trademark use agreements, that often don't even include any money changing hands. Apple gets a bit of product placement, and the producers get a prop that's subtly realistic. There's no uncanny modifications that look just a wee bit off, distracting from the scene.
that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs
No, that's actually exactly why. Similarly, no
Coke (Score:3)
Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.
Well, first of all, MS and Dell both have major presences in a lot of movies and TV, big and small, from Marvel through the new Tomorrow People. Second Apple logos are often blocked out *because* they didn't license, they just used the product because it was aesthetically pleasing. Third there are whole movies devoted to basically being car company product placement. The Need for Speed movie was basically a dressed up Ford ad.
But lastly, Coke is easily the most placed product. It's everywhere
Re: (Score:2)
I find it really jarring when I'm getting into a TV show but then someone holds their iPhone wrong or finds the information they need with Bing. IT is never portrayed realistically on TV, but come on...
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be silly, everyone knows that apple invented the computer, the Internet, the MP3 player, the smartphone, the smart watch and that Steve Jobs figured out how to solve climate change and buried the secret deep within iTunes, if only we could get the damned program to run properly so we could save the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banshee is a pretty good (if archaic) alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
And now I have the mental image of an Apple product dragging its ass across my carpet leaving a long brown shit stain.
Re: (Score:2)
So show widgits and wadgits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Apple Macbook is shown in the video being used to prepare a patent application, or to display the inventor's design on screen. there is a sack in the background, what looks like a coffee cup you would get from a coffee shop, and a smart phone on the table off to the side, not the subject of the discussion --- it might be an iPhone; i'm not sure... it's not part of the discussion or an example of an invention... it's just in the backgroun environment
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the way you single out North Americans, as if they indeed are somehow more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians. Time for a reality check, dude.
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of software patents and Copyright idiocy, the USA sure leads the charge.
cf. "Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52,[1] "programs for computers" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents,[2] but this exclusion from patentability only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to a computer program as such.[3] As a result of this partial exclusion, and despite the fact that the EPO subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny [4] when compared to their American counterpart, that does not mean that all inventions including some software are de jure not patentable." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I misremember American law also prohibits patents on software "as such". The question is how amenable to contortions the patent office and patent courts are.
Re: (Score:3)
The AC's comment was not so narrowly confined, was it? He took a specific narrow example of stupidity/greed/corruption and made a homeopathic attempt to generalize it.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, simple point out the European case where an instructional video supplied by the court, shows examples of plaintiff being correct and when challenged the court blocks the challenge, as such instructing the jury that Apple is correct. This is really blatantly corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the way you single out North Americans, as if they indeed are somehow more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians.....
Anybody who claims that has never been to Russia. There are other countries in Europe where corruption is rife but from talking with people who have done business there, Russia is like the wild west (along with Belarus and the Ukraine). One guy I talked to called Russia a "kleptocracy". Take a look at this map of perceived corruption around the world:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]
High index is clean, a low one is corrupt. As you can see much of Eastern Europe (i.e. ex Warsaw pact) is at least two steps u
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that makes American sociopaths "more corrupt" than the sociopaths confined inside any other arbitrary national border? It's a matter of OPPORTUNITY, stupid, not a demonstration of a greater degree of corruption than anyone/anywhere else. Do you honestly believe that sociopaths in any other nation, given the same situational opportunity that American sociopaths enjoy now, would refrain from doing exactly what their American brothers are doing now?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wasn't talking theory. I was talking about what actually happens and has happened. It's just a demonstrable as your "practice". And yes, I called you stupid because you were being stupid, and I explained why in a fashion that should be obvious to anyone with a passing grasp of history and human psychology. The fact that you refuse to be critical enough to recognize it reaffirms that you're being stupid. Stop it and perhaps you'll no longer be stupid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
easy.... americans are corrupt fuckers
No. What they are is lazy, childish, obese, opiated by entertainment, naive, and self-centered. This enables the corruption by the minority who really run things.
The rest of the world only thinks Americans are evil and corrupt because of the myth that the US government and US corporations are representing the will of the American people and operating on their behalf.
Most Americans would be shocked and horrified if they learned about what their government and major corporations have done to places li
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world only thinks Americans are evil and corrupt because of the myth that the US government and US corporations are representing the will of the American people and operating on their behalf.
pish, the world doesn't think americans are corrupt. they love us because of hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Americans would be shocked and horrified if they learned about what their government and major corporations have done to places like South America, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, let alone what goes on at home.
I think that might be accurate. The thing is, though, in a nominal democracy it is up to the People to be aware of what is being done in their name. And when these things continue for decades, across different administrations of all (ahem, both) parties. The rest of the world is not wrong in holding all Americans responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Americans would be shocked and horrified if they learned about what their government and major corporations have done to places like South America, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, let alone what goes on at home.
I think that might be accurate. The thing is, though, in a nominal democracy it is up to the People to be aware of what is being done in their name. And when these things continue for decades, across different administrations of all (ahem, both) parties. The rest of the world is not wrong in holding all Americans responsible.
It was for this reason that I stopped short of saying "and therefore they should all get a pass and be considered totally blameless". I'm with you. It's not that hard to learn about these things. It's a problem of inertia really. Once the first step is taken, the rest unfolds naturally enough. What's the first step? Don't believe anything the government says (George Carlin was right about that), learn to do research, and stop depending on mainstream media to spoonfeed information to you.
If somethin
Re:Bad law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only Americans... just check your neighborhood... or in the mirror.
I was with you until "in the mirror". The fact is, most people in most places are not this corrupt. Most people are subject to a minority who happen to "run things".
As a matter of fact, this is part of the problem: the average person working a job and raising a family cannot comprehend the greed, the self-interested several-moves-ahead strategy that looks like things "just worked out that way", the corruption, the ruthlessness, and the dehumanization. If the average person fully understood these forces, then you would in fact have a situation where public awareness keeps these abuses in check.
Adolph Hitler himself described the phenomenon with surprising candor. He said: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
Because they themselves do not use this level of deceit, it does not occur to them that others do. Therefore there is a certain innocence or naivete that prevents the average person from suspecting and guarding against such things.
A gaze into this mirror for most would reflect not such corruption, but a kind of innocence that ideally would know better. History is replete with examples, but of course that only happens elsewhere. It can't happen here. It certainly cannot happen in a manner that is subtle, not publicised, not obvious, not easily detectable. Or so the thinking goes.
The truth is, the corrupt are competing not with a vigilant and wise public, but against other sociopaths. Other sociopaths deal with this not by exposing all corruption, for that would harm themselves, but by carving out their own little niche that doesn't encroach upon the terriority of their competitors more than necessary. The average person has no clue how much they're being lied to on a daily basis by governments, corporations, and other institutions which enjoy an automatic credibility they have not earned.
Instant. Appeal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:
Samsung’s objection to Apple’s proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, “The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,” and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders.
The article apparently originally appeared on Recode.net [recode.net] so better to use primary source (which has the ruling and both videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:
Because a neutral video cant be used to influence the jury.
Judge Koh's handling of the previous Apple V Samsung case was extremely biased and she got away with it. Why would there be any need to be fair now?
Please implode already? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seriously tired of this crap. I no longer care who wins or loses in any of this. The patent system is simply being abused in every which way. Software patents have got to go as do design patents as petty as rounded corners. This idiocy has got to end at some point. I honestly expected it to come to a head before now. This is like walking in mud from New York to California.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a plaintiff in this case. If you think the system is being abused they'd be the target of your animosity. Not that Samsung is innocent of abusing the system, but there are very few out there as outright hostile as Apple when it comes to these things.
Is there any law against competent jurors? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced someone who doesn't know what a patent is BEFORE being selected is
the best person to decide a case like this. Why can't we have scientists in the jury when
it's scientific, medical professionals when it's medical in nature, computer experts when
it is computer related, etc... I think it's unrealistic to pick someone who doesn't know what
a patent/modem/etc.. is and expect them to make an accurate decision when they don't
understand the technology or process involved.
Re:Is there any law against competent jurors? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see arguments for both sides.
We're all aware of some of the asinine judgments that jurors and judges have passed down when they don't understand the technology or science at play.
On the other side, however, only allowing doctors to serve as jurors for doctors or engineers to be jurors for engineers can get into some dangerous territory quickly. For instance, what's to stop them from looking out for their own? Doctors could get sued for malpractice and never be found to be at fault. Engineers could be sued for cutting corners and then get off the hook because "it's simply too complicated for a normal person to understand". Having a jury of your peers that includes laypeople ensures that such things aren't possible. Having a random sampling also helps to ensure everyone is treated more equally, otherwise some people will be playing under a different set of rules than the others.
That said, having laypeople is fundamentally at odds with the patent system, which specifies the idea of non-obviousness in terms of whether or not it's obvious to one "skilled in the art", i.e. someone with domain knowledge. A layperson isn't really qualified to judge non-obviousness without first receiving sufficient instruction to become skilled in the art, which simply isn't feasible. As such, it seems like it may make sense to bring in professionals for such cases.
One result I can pretty much guarantee for you is that if they do start bringing in professionals instead of laypeople to deal with these cases, the patent system will get overhauled in short order, simply because the professionals won't want to be getting dragged into court constantly to serve as jurors a disproportionate amount of the time compared to a typical person. Any changes that need to happen to get things fixed will suddenly happen when you start inconveniencing everyone in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see arguments for both sides.
We're all aware of some of the asinine judgments that jurors and judges have passed down when they don't understand the technology or science at play.
On the other side, however, only allowing doctors to serve as jurors for doctors or engineers to be jurors for engineers can get into some dangerous territory quickly. For instance, what's to stop them from looking out for their own? Doctors could get sued for malpractice and never be found to be at fault. Engineers could be sued for cutting corners and then get off the hook because "it's simply too complicated for a normal person to understand".
Ironically, that exact excuse was not only used, but also accepted time and time again when lawyers from the banking institutions were dragged in front of Congress to try and explain their questionable business practices, time and time again.
Care to tell me again why the hell that excuse would not work in cases where patents and billions are at stake? Seems to be good enough for the entire American financial sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that people who are familiar with "x" will tend to sympathize with others of their kind. Look at the problem we have holding any member of the criminal justice system - from street cops all the way to judges - liable for even the most egregious illegal acts. It's crazy.
Juries should be a mix of experts and non-experts alike, with the experts providing needed information for the others. There's no perfect way around it, but the current method of "throw out all jurors with an IQ over
Slide to unlock (Score:2)
FYI.
I recall slide to unlock on the Medtronic N'Vision 8840 circa 2002.
Maybe you can get *that* bogus patent thrown out?
go with the classics (Score:2)
I was going to suggest using a wheel as an example, but Apple claims that invention for the iPod dial.
This is why its so hard to spot April Fools... (Score:3)
Whisky tango foxtrot?
I could understand it if the judge decided to show something she'd TiVOd of Discovery Channel the week before but this sounds as if it was made for this specific purpose.
What possible combination of misconceptions would lead the 'Federal Judicial Center' (the name suggests they might have the odd law degree to share between them) to feature any recognizable commercial products in an instructional video specifically made to instruct jurors in cases inevitably involving competing businesses?
Surely, any moron commissioning such a video would have 'Don't show any brands or recognizable products' on page 1 of the brief? With a footnote saying 'even if its arguably not in the context of patentability - we don't want to create excuses for objections or appeals when all those fellow lawyers are getting paid by the hou...
Oh, wait.
They would change it but... (Score:3)
Apple owns the patent for not showing an apple logo in instructional videos, thus in order to not violate the patent and get sued they MUST use an apple logo in their instructional video. It's simple really...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple.
Now it does...
Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting a patent is supposed to require coming up with something new and non-obvious - something many of Apple's patent claims lack. (e.g. pinch/spread to compress/zoom).
There's also the issue of Apple's apparent copying of a Samsung design [blogspot.com] when they created the iPad, which they disingenuously tried to claim in reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires).
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I avoid them because they don't use TI microprocessors, since TI was two months earlier than Intel in developing a microprocessor, and theirs was a true single chip microprocessor, while Intel's was only part of a bigger solution. There's also the microcontroller/DSP combo that went into the F14 Tomcat two years earlier, but was classified until 1997, and unknown to both Intel and TI, and then the Gilbert Hyatt invention
Re: (Score:2)
Pinch to zoom in 1988 [youtube.com]. Apple's patented version is one of those ridiculous "on a" patents, where you take (steal) a pre-existing idea, and tack the words "on a [something]" to the end of it. In their case, "pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen." The USPTO overturned the patent last year.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple."
You mean other than the fact she acted as a lawyer for Apple under the law firm she used to work for?
No, nothing indicates bias whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Why did a second instructional video have to be made?
Because the first one, "Fucking patents - how do they work?" was thought to be in contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
You and your conspiracy theories. I heard that it didn't have enough double rainbows.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, there is already another edition of the video that neither party objects to. Surely just to avoid even the perception of impropriety that version could have been used.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Apple would have an issue if Samsung hired the same actors and reshot only the scenes that used apple hardware and used Samsung hardware instead?
Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I'm going to look foolish for saying this, but I actually watched part of the video (enough to know how apple products are portrayed)! The apple product in the video is being used to file for a patent. There is _nothing_ in the video about patents owned by apple, or patents involving apple products. The suggestion by Samsung that the video biases jurors is absurd.
Yes, just like the Pepsi Cola in the action movie is merely being used by the badass hero to quench his thirst, and certainly no claim is being made that it is superior to Coca-Cola or any niche brand of soft drink.
Yet Pepsi Cola paid a lot of money to make that happen.
Why should Apple get this treatment for free with government support? When it would be so easy to create a video with none of these questions? That's the take-away here.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.
(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)
Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
In the previous case, Apple asked, and was awarded by the same judge, covering the Samsung logo on the TVs used to display evidence to the Jurors. The claim then was that the court use of Samsung products might be seen as an endorsement of the company. This is, substantially, the same claim now used by Samsung.
I have not seen the whole video. The parts I did see did not show the Apple logo prominently. If that is the case throughout, I think this decision is reasonable. This, assuming none of the products used are the same as the products around which this case revolves. I believe this is the case (I did not see an Apple logo in my skimming, and the products are macbooks, while this case is about phones).
If, however, the Apple logo was on screen, or the products do have an overlap, then I think that decision, particularly by that judge, is hypocritical and wrong.
Shachar