or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Friday ruled that an Apple lawsuit against Samsung over Siri patents can continue, despite questioning whether or not the proceedings should be suspended until an appeal related to the Apple v. Samsung trial is completed.

Judge Lucy Koh
Judge Lucy Koh. | Source: U.S. District Court


As noted by Reuters, the case in question involves patents not discussed in the landmark Apple v. Samsung jury trial, including search technology used in Apple's Siri virtual assistant. In allowing the litigation to continue, Judge Koh ordered that both parties "significantly" streamline their assertions but paring down the number of claims and associated expert testimony.

Judge Koh in February voiced concern over the upcoming patent suit, asking counsel from both companies if the case should be put on hold until after the conclusion of hearings regarding the verdict handed in by the Apple v. Samsung trial jury last August. Apple is appealing an earlier ruling by Judge Koh that denied a sales ban of infringing Samsung handsets.

In response to the judge's request, Apple on Thursday filed an objection to a Samsung motion that would have suspended the second trial until the appeals process for the first is finished.

With Judge Koh's Friday ruling, the Siri trial will start hearings in March 2014.
post #2 of 63

Will Siri be called as a witness?

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
post #3 of 63
I hope Siri gets to testify.



edit: Pipped by, GTR. Damn you!
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/8/13 at 7:58pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #4 of 63
March 2014????
post #5 of 63
I don't know why; but somehow the repeated posting of this photograph of some judge just seems really immature and lame and super dumb and poopy-poop.

Why don't you find a nice photo of Cook and a photo of Kwon, splice them together and photoshop a knife into each ones hand. Use that as standard byline photo instead.
post #6 of 63
What did Samsung copy from Siri. S voice is just a Vlingo client and the licenses go to Vlingo so samsung would be free from any lawsuit for that.
post #7 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

What did Samsung copy from Siri. S voice is just a Vlingo client and the licenses go to Vlingo so samsung would be free from any lawsuit for that.

The article explains it. Apple has patents covering voice technology. Whether Samsung is infringing those patents has nothing to do with where Samsung got the technology from someone else.

Now, if Vlingo is using the same technology and if it predates Apple's patents, it could affect the validity of the patents, but "we got it from someone else" does not, by itself, let them off the hook.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 63

Vlingo existed before Siri if memory holds true. Plus why not go after Vlingo? They are licensing the technology to Samsung and others. So if the infringement does exist why not go after the source?

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #9 of 63

Good gosh.  So many sites echoing the same nonsense headline.

 

There is nothing in this lawsuit about Siri VOICE technology or Vlingo or anything like that.

 

The closest thing to being about Siri, is the patent that is often dubbed "the universal search patent", which is about searching both local storage and remote sites.

 

(I have explained that patent before.  The poor construction of its primary claim was the basis for a three judge panel denying Apple's request for an injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, and later refusing Apple's appeal for an en banc review of that denial.)

 

--

 

The only truly Siri related patent case that I know of right now, is the one that was filed against Apple from two Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professors, as reported here by Patently Apple last October.

 
--
 
If I get time, I'll later post and explain all of the actual patents in this particular Koh court case.  Or perhaps someone can find a link to such an explanation.  Thanks!

Edited by KDarling - 3/9/13 at 5:49am
post #10 of 63
"...Judge Koh ordered that both parties "significantly" streamline their assertions but paring down the number of claims and associated expert testimony. "

BY, not BUT.
post #11 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Vlingo existed before Siri if memory holds true. Plus why not go after Vlingo? They are licensing the technology to Samsung and others. So if the infringement does exist why not go after the source?

Perhaps Vlingo is not infringing the patents in question and Samsung is. Perhaps Apple plans to go after Vlingo, but wants to go after Samsung first. Perhaps Vlingo has a license with Apple but Samsung doesn't. There are all sorts of reasons why Apple might be going after Samsung and not Vlingo.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

(I have explained that patent before.  The poor construction of its primary claim was the basis for a three judge panel denying Apple's request for an injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, and later refusing Apple's appeal for an en banc review of that denial.)

 

 

Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.

post #13 of 63

I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.

post #14 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Perhaps Vlingo is not infringing the patents in question and Samsung is. Perhaps Apple plans to go after Vlingo, but wants to go after Samsung first. Perhaps Vlingo has a license with Apple but Samsung doesn't. There are all sorts of reasons why Apple might be going after Samsung and not Vlingo.

Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.

 

This was discussed in the last thread. I don't have a problem with it. Too much information is not good for the jury and could cause them to make mistakes resulting in appeals or new trials. Apple should just file five concurrent trials with each one concentrating on a few claims instead of one large trial with everything done at once.

 

We had a very high-profile murder case here in Vancouver and they split that trial up because there was too much evidence to bring up all at one trial. This is actually quite common in cases with a lot of (or complex) evidence.

post #16 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I just think it's psychotic for a judge to be allowed to tell plaintiffs to "pare down" their arguments when a trial isn't even occurring yet. That doesn't seem right in any respect.

 

I agree that it doesn't seem fair.

 

In the last trial, Judge Koh put limits on the number of hours each side was allowed for testimony and counter arguments.   This limit worked against Samsung, who wanted more time.

 

Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple isn't complaining.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....

 

Again, this case has nothing at all to do with voice patents.

 

The headlines are misleading.

post #17 of 63
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.

 

I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.

post #18 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Good points! But if Vlingo has a license agreement with Apple then the same license would travel to clients Vlingo then licenses the technology to....otherwise it would invalidate the first agreement. At this point there are more questions than answers....

Unless it's a non-transferrable license - which are reasonably common. If ti's non-transferrable, it doesn't automatically go to Samsung.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Then maybe the judge should allow Apple to present 200 patents in a single trial? Imagine the headache that would cause, the months of testominy, hundreds of witnesses - it would be a mess. Where do you stop? What's the limit on how many patents/claims you can bring up in a single trial before it's "too much"?

A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger team and soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.

This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.

This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.
post #20 of 63
The idea of going after Samsung has always been to ward people off Android. Personally, I think people would take exception to an operating system been attacked, so win against the top guy and everyone else will be a poodle in comparison.
post #21 of 63

its like limiting the amount of murders by a serial killer...samsuck being the serial killer..

post #22 of 63

I also am confused as to why it is called the "Siri" lawsuit. There was and may still be four patents at issue. The patent people seem to be referring to as the Siri patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959. The description of the patent says, "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."

 

The patent probably partially involves Siri, but it is more about the iPhone's implementation of Mac OSX's Spot light. Namely, when you slide the phone screen all way to the left a search bar pops up. The patent is about how Spot light organizes information on the computer to be retrieved from a search. Apple has had this feature on Macs for a long time, so the patent seems pretty strong. 

post #23 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Then maybe the judge should allow Apple to present 200 patents in a single trial? Imagine the headache that would cause, the months of testominy, hundreds of witnesses - it would be a mess. Where do you stop? What's the limit on how many patents/claims you can bring up in a single trial before it's "too much"?

A patent can stand on its own in court. I don't think the judge is "artificially limiting" the claims if both sides are allowed to present the same number of patents. She just wants them to "send in the top 3 players from each side" to fight, not have 3 on one side fighting 5 on the other side. Good thing for Apple is they have a larger team and soon Samsung is going to run out of layers for their counter suits.

This is not like a murder trial with the judge telling each side to limit your witness list. If a witness has something to add they should be allowed to so ALL the evidence is heard.

This is more like a hit man who is being charged with murdering 10 people in different cities and the judge deciding to have 10 trials, one for each murder.

 

 

I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sitting on a jury to understand. The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper. Yet, she forced Apple to bring separate cases for the various claims of patent infringement. If Apple was able to bring all its patents claims at once, the level of infringement (if Apple was successful) would be higher. 

 

I also don't like how the jury overturned the juries finding of willful infringement on shallow grounds. The evidence certainly was strong enough to support that finding. 

post #24 of 63

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:28pm
post #25 of 63
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
Given that Apple has so little confidence in Siri that they still label it "Beta" after a year and a half

 

No company has ever let any product go that long in beta status before. This has never happened in the history of human civiliza…

 

Gmail was launched as an invitation-only beta release on April 1, 2004[9] and it became available to the general public on February 7, 2007, though still in beta status at that time.[10] The service was upgraded from beta status on July 7, 2009,

 

Oh, right.

post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I agree with much you say. This is about trying to make the cases easy enough for regular people sitting on a jury to understand.

 

Especially since infringement only requires proof for one claim per patent.  As Judge Koh pointed out to the lawyers for both sides, they should know by now which of their claims are most likely to be upheld... and should concentrate on those... instead of wasting anyone's time on "filler material" as she put it.

 

Quote:

The problem I have with the judge trimming the cases, though is she is using the limited nature of the first case to disallow an injunction. Namely, she said since Apple's sued upon patents in the first case only encompass a small amount of features on the infringing phone, an injunction isn't proper. 

 

That might be mixing up cases, since Koh sided with Apple at first on this one.    

 

  • 2012 Jun -  Judge Koh GRANTS Apple a pretrial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, based on her opinion that Apple would probably be able to prove infringement on at least the search patent.
  • 2012 Oct - Three judge appeals panel says Apple's search claim poorly worded, remands case back to Koh, forcing her to remove the injunction.
  • 2012 Dec - Apple asks for an en banc (all judge) review of the appeals decision.
  • 2013 Jan -  Appeals court denies Apple's request.

 

Samsung modified their search box before the injunction took effect, rendering the multi-location search patent moot. 


Edited by KDarling - 3/9/13 at 5:52pm
post #27 of 63

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:33pm
post #28 of 63
My posts are again being deleted.
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.
My posts are my opinions just like others and yet are being removed.
post #29 of 63
Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
post #30 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.

Nonsense. Siri was not perfect, nor does anyone expect it to be. But it works very well.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

My posts are again being deleted.
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.
My posts are my opinions just like others and yet are being removed.

Note that AI is not the government but a privately owned company that can do as it sees fit… unless you wish to actually defy argue that the democratic republic in which is was created is wrong for allowing it to conduct business as it sees fit.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.

So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?

You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.

Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.

Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #33 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.

You complained about AI being like communists.  Yet you want SIRI to be taken out of beta.  Then you want Apple to copy Samsung.  You really sound like a teenager.  

post #34 of 63
Originally Posted by hfts View Post
My posts are again being deleted.
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.

 

Well, when your posts call for the carpet-bombing of a country, which is the more totalitarian ideology?


My posts are my opinions…

 

No, it was just plain wrong.

post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.


You could state your problem with the comment for once rather than write personal attacks in the form of sarcasm.

post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


You could state your problem with the comment for once rather than write personal attacks in the form of sarcasm.
Not to known trolls who have a large number of posts that contribute little to the discussion at hand. Or spend time very carefully crafting their posts to pretend to be neutral while spouting half-truths.

Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nonsense. Siri was not perfect, nor does anyone expect it to be. But it works very well.
It makes too many mistakes, I suppose for beta this is acceptable. However it needs to be improved, most would agree here. it needs to have far greater integration with settings for instance.
It MUST not rely on google at all, tie it in with Yahoo or Bing when it cannot give a definitive answer and must resort to a search. I will not use it unless I can change this default setting somehow.
post #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?

You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.

Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.

Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
How come I need to waste my precious time and spell things out.
It needs to be improved, and WHEN it does to an acceptable level then it won't be called a beta product.
I will come back to answer your other points
To be continued ...
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

You complained about AI being like communists.  Yet you want SIRI to be taken out of beta.  Then you want Apple to copy Samsung.  You really sound like a teenager.  
What waffle. Did you read my post at all? What are u on about? Putting worlds in my mouth.
post #40 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.

 

I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.

 

For you to claim to be on the side of truth TS, is as credible as Hitler claiming to love Jews.

 

You know very well that I have called you out for lying, in this forum,  about my Email address being a fake, but despite many requests to do so you have NEVER retracted this, despite knowing that you are wrong on the facts.

 

I also find it ironic that you are using the argument that it is disingenuous to the extreme to prevent a jury from even hearing the information in the first place, since this was exactly what Samsung objected to in the first Apple/Samsung litigation and which many believe was prejudicial to Samsung's ability to mount a defence.

 

You didn't find the court's decision to be disingenuous when it worked in apple's favour.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to allow Apple's 'Siri' suit against Samsung to continue, orders case to be streamlined