Pretty sure people defending Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to win/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the right.
It's another jury foreman interview. I swear, each time this guy gives an interview, he digs a hole deeper and deeper for himself and the jury, and is giving Samsung a lot of ammunition to have the whole thing thrown out.
Basically he's confirming things folks have speculated for days based on somewhat-vague comments he's made in past interviews. But he really lays it out in this one. So what do we know?
1. His methodology for consideration of prior art is flawed. In the case of an algorithmic technique, the source code need not be interchangeable between two devices, just that the prior art's source code (or other publication of the algorithm) "provides a description sufficient to inform an average worker in the field of some subject matter falling within the scope of the claim" (apologies for Wikipedia).
2. He admits that (his misunderstood) interchangeability requirement, the specific fact that Apple's source code couldn't be loaded onto old hardware and expected to work, was a key test in deciding that the prior art was not valid.
3. Finally, he admits that his "expertise" in the patent process kept the jury from asking the judge clarification questions.
BBC News and Velvin Hogan posted:
There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents were invalid since prior art existed showing similar ideas?
Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art.
...
There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.
What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable.
And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true.
...
Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different - or it might have been the same.
I believe that the jury system in this country stands. The individuals would have ultimately come to a verdict. It might have been a lot longer.
But what definitely would have been required is passing more questions to the judge and having them come back. In our case we didn't have to.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/30/apple-patent-analysis-google-android/
hahahahahahhahhahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
But wait, I thought the patent was invalid, so why would Google have to work around it?
The Apple v. Samsung patent war that will seemingly never end has taken another turn today, as Apple is asking the court to add newer Samsung Galaxy hardware, including the Galaxy S III, Verizon Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1 to its complaint against the Galaxy Nexus and other related devices.
Samsung has another victory, this time in a Japanese court.
Pretty sure people attacking Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to lose/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the wrong.
MotionMan
Exactly. This fact also illustrates how Apple's real motives are merely to stifle competition by blocking phones that they can't compete with. The Nexus doesn't fit with any of the other claims against Samsung (runs stock Android, not Samsung's own launcher, doesn't look a thing like the iPhone) and they found a judge favorable to their bullshit.The Galaxy Nexus was banned for a short amount of time so even using stock android isn't completely safe.
The retard Jury foreman keeps opening his stupid mouth and inserting his foot. If this continues on, Judge Koh will HAVE to overturn this atrocity of a verdict.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19425052
I'm going to quote this poster from another forum, no need to retype the analysis:
Pretty sure people attacking Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to lose/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the wrong.
MotionMan
Pretty sure people attacking Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to lose/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the wrong.
MotionMan
So, you think its ok for Kia to make a copy of a Ferrari F40 and sell it ? Its ok to make counterfiet Rolexes ?
And Apple didn't patent flat screen touch interfaces.
so you're saying the samsung phones are a counterfiet iphone? it is an exact clone? it has the word iphone on the thing? it looks exactly the same?
I said nothing about looks. I was responding to a claim that a "user experience" cannot be protected.
And I asked a question. Somewhere between a completely original and an exact copy is a line where design and function should be protectable.
Which includes looking at it from the user experience, if its the same, then logically the devices are the same.
Which includes looking at it from the user experience, if its the same, then logically the devices are the same.
Pretty sure people attacking Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to lose/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the wrong.
MotionMan
Pretty sure people defending Apple are only doing so because they simply want Apple to win/want to see others get annoyed(no surprise that many of them are known trolls) and not because they think it's legitimate. The evidence is overwhelming, there is no way anyone could honestly believe Apple is in the right.
Ummm, no.
Spoken like a true believer.
You guys nailed dguy6789 pretty good.
MotionMan
You're about as infantile as they come. I can just hear you crying on your keyboard.
And you guys are about as wrong as they come. You would not know a properly formed civil trial verdict form if it was explained to you by a competent, experienced, licensed California litigation attorney (like myself).
I have not been keeping track, but have any of the other members of the ATOT Bar disagreed with me?
MotionMan