or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
Samsung has raised objections to a "how patents work" video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.



Update: Samsung's objection has been overruled.

The FJC video (embedded below), was developed by United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel, for the purpose of explaining to jurors involved in patent cases what a patent is, why they exist in law, how inventors obtain patents and how courts resolve patent disputes in a jury trial.

At the beginning of the first Apple vs. Samsung case, jurors were shown a similar video. However, over the past year the the FJC developed an updated version, replacing the dated-looking earlier edition that depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below).



The new video (below) appears on the US Courts YouTube channel, where it is described as being "carefully crafted, in consultation with judges and members of the bar, to present a balanced view of the patent process," noting that "individual judges will want to review it carefully and consult with counsel before deciding whether to use it in a particular case."



Samsung has filed an objection to showing the video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."

Samsung's attorneys detailed each minute of film where an Apple product appears, noting that "at the 2:55 mark, a series of Apple products are shown, including an iPad, a newer model of a laptop computer, and an iPhone. The narration during this portion of the video addresses how the disclosure of a patent may 'inspire new inventions.'"

Samsung doesn't also mention that the video segment begins with the depiction of a user typing on an early 1980s Apple II computer.

Then, at the "approximately the 4:10 mark, during the discussion of what an 'invention' is, an actor playing an 'inventor' is shown at a table using an Apple laptop computer," Samsung's brief continues. "At the 4:35 mark, the requirements that a patent be new, useful and non-obvious are shown on the screen in front of a still image of an Apple computer."

The company then detailed two more appearances: "Beginning at the 5:13 mark, the actor depicting the inventor is shown meeting with an actor depicting a patent prosecution attorney in a law office, and again is using his Apple laptop computer," and "the inventor's Apple computer is clearly visible again beginning at the 11:22 mark."

The objection filing included screen shots of the video (below) where a device can be identified as an Apple product.



"At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.

The majority of the computers shown in the video are Windows machines from a variety of makers, including prominent depiction of Dell logos on monitors appearing in the court setting and a series of generic Windows PCs being used within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review applications.
post #2 of 68

The next step is to make sure that all jurors for all Apple patent cases are made aware of Samsung’s objection.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 68
Wouldn't it be just as prejudicial if apple products are not shows given the fact that other manufacturer products are?
post #4 of 68
Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
post #5 of 68

Haven't Apple's patents been upheld by the first stage of this very trial? What better example for the jury than to show a working patented item that has already withstood scrutiny from a jury of their peers? Right?

 

That being said, I do understand how Samsung is irked from this but justice cannot be fair to both sides.

post #6 of 68
Originally Posted by wigby View Post

…justice cannot be fair to both sides.

 

Of course it can. That’s sort of the idea.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #7 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby View Post

Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
I don't know that the patent issue was ever really settled either. Edison's "light buld" patent was ruled invalid back in 1883, then litigated for the next six years of so. He finally made a business pact with another patent holder who filed before him and apparently agreed to work together.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 68
Quote:
 Of course it can. That’s sort of the idea.

Ask both sides that question. Never has both sides given your answer.

post #9 of 68
Quote:
 "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.

 

No Sh** Sherlock

post #10 of 68
Originally Posted by wigby View Post
Ask both sides that question. Never has both sides given your answer.

 

Screw what they think. The only thing that matters is what is.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #11 of 68
I love this one: "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable,"

Really? Are they serious?
post #12 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Screw what they think. The only thing that matters is what is.

That's fine but you do know that a judge and jury are deciding on things. They are also very imperfect so what is is just another set of stupid biased opinions. They might as well decide based on an appleinsider forum vote. That would only be a little less biased ;-)

post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

I love this one: "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable,"

Really? Are they serious?

They must have forgotten that's why they copied them in the first place instead of designing their products uniquely like other manufacturers managed to do.
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 

 

Hey, isn't that a Galaxy Tab 10.1, in the top left corner?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 68

Sorry, Sammy, this is also a lesson for you in how patents work!

post #16 of 68
No samsung products in the video ? Ouch Ouch.

And even if there would be just a sign of bulge in a pocket of pants of on the video caused by an apple, samsung would try to turn that to huge biases of jury towards Apple and how that actually makes samsung products appear unoriginal, because of glossy surface that is sugesting that samsung's galxy S3 (and billion of other models) is infringing the patent of glossy surface patent unfairly held by Apple.

Well samsung is a band of arogant richies, who want to lose as little money as possible in this case and they can make such ridiculous things like this, just to improve their chances of success.
post #17 of 68

To me, Sounds like acts of desperation on the part of Samsung.

post #18 of 68
I find Scamsung's comments quite ironic, since their own lawyers admitted to their clients' products being guilty of using significant stolen IP from Apple, which completely solidifies the statement that Apple's products are "innovative and patentable".

Go die Samsung!
post #19 of 68

Just when I thought Samsung couldn't sink any lower. What the ****? Apple products are one of MANY shown in the video. So the video will prejudice the jurors because it suggests that Apple products exist?

 

What a despicable, slimy company, throwing all the shit at the wall that they can. 

post #20 of 68
Given that Samsung products are complete clones of Apple products I'm surprised Samsung noticed.
post #21 of 68

The video is easily edited to correct the problems Samsung highlights. Most of the video is really not helpful to a juror -- it is filler and can be replaced.

 

I think the video is poorly done. There are too many scenes showing computers and monitors, keyboards, etc. and they do not add anything to the discussion. 

 

Secondly, the video only discusses utility patents, as it talks about "inventions", and "useful". There are also design patents which are neither "inventions" nor "useful", but have other criteria for patentability. As the Apple v Samsung case is concerned, it may very well be that some patents in question are design patents. 

 

The USPTO should get their money back for the video. 

post #22 of 68
Plot twist: they're not and Samsung attorneys still can't tell the difference 1biggrin.gif
post #23 of 68

They might as well change it to deprive lawyers of a spurious objection. Replace them with generic devices of no obvious make.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Hey, isn't that a Galaxy Tab 10.1, in the top left corner?

No, I think that's the iPad's home button on the left side?

(or was that the joke?)

post #24 of 68

I love the inventor names given on the sample patent at around 6:40. Walter Plinge and Georgina Spelvin. The first a pseudonym commonly used as a placeholder for an uncast actor, and the second played the lead in The Devil In Miss Jones.

post #25 of 68

This is almost as funny as Microsoft Australia... they had employed an advertising agency to publish documents for Microsoft. The ad agency used Macs, but the agency was not allowed to bring a Mac into Microsoft headquarters. All meetings where only to occur within the Ad agencies location.

 

Really?

 

Head in the sand does not make something go away. Grow up people.

 

I wonder how many Microsoft employees used Apple products at home? I'd guess all of them. ;-)

post #26 of 68
In the interests of fairness the video could and should have shown no product that had any reference or connection to the case. Absolutely no need to explain patent law in this way. But there wouldn't be a case if they (Samsung) didn't copy and steal. They also did it with Dyson a vacuum cleaner in the UK recently, they just don't care.
post #27 of 68
Samsung would like the jury to feel that nothing of Apple's is patentable, as their business model is to copy Apple innovations closely and quickly.
post #28 of 68

did they show the video on a Samsung TV?

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #29 of 68
wigby 03/29/2014 03:27 PM
Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)

The Light bulb is round and you can't patent round objects.
post #30 of 68

they also had Apple II in the video. ;-)

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #31 of 68

That's what happens when you hire a creative agency to produce your video. - you get a lot of product placement that represents the artist's bias.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #32 of 68
Samsung needs to step up to the plate. They need to copy ...uh... invent new computers and request they be added to the video.
post #33 of 68

"At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.

 

Isn't that kinda the core of the case - Apple claims that their products are innovative and patentable and Samsung says nuh uh.

 

Still I would think that the items used in an instructional video should not have been in any way related to any of the product involved in the law suit. For example, when I brother took a course to become a certified trainer for an office electronics dealer the presentation he had to give as part of the course was not allowed to involved any office electronics. By requiring the students to present on a topic not related to the job at hand meant that no one hand an unfair advantage or, for those starting out, did not require any knowledge of the job specific subject - and allowed them instead to draw on something that was personally familiar to them. So in this case they could have used something along the lines of kitchen utensils or furniture maybe. 

 

Been seeing lots of Samsung Galaxy Pro Note 10 commercials, or is it Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 10, or is it NotePro 10.1, or is it 12? Even though they say the name of the product a number of times in the commercial, when I try to repeat it, it never sounds right. Reminds me of a time my other brother and I decide to say the word abominable snowman in as many incorrect ways as we could, the indomitable snowman, abdominal snowman, etc, after 20 minutes or so we were unable to saw it correctly with any confidence that we were in fact saying to correctly. 

post #34 of 68
Are those stock photos from the 80s?
post #35 of 68
Assholes
post #36 of 68

"depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below)"

What do you mean, "lots of plaid"?! I only see one guy wearing plaid.

 

See...!! this is just the kind of Anti-plaid bias I've come to expect on this website! Apple didn't invent vertical lines of color interacting with horizontal bands of color!

 

Just get off your high horse, A.I.!!

post #37 of 68
The companies featured in this US Judicial System video, helping to explain the US patent process are US based companies; Dell based in Texas, Microsoft based in Washington, and Apple in California. I think most goverents tend to prefer local brands to international brands.

Maybe Samsung can get the South Korean government to make their own video that nobody will watch. Which brings up the other point, if Samsung wasn't such a whiny child about this, virtually nobody would have watched this borig video (with exception of people interested in filing a patent). Next thing you know they will be complaining they were left out of McDonald's sexual harassment training videos.
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Windle View Post

This is almost as funny as Microsoft Australia... they had employed an advertising agency to publish documents for Microsoft. The ad agency used Macs, but the agency was not allowed to bring a Mac into Microsoft headquarters. All meetings where only to occur within the Ad agencies location.

That's odd. I used to work at Microsoft as a vendor at the US HQ. My boss made me use a PC, but usually when I went to meetings with all the "real" Microsoft employees, I was the only one who didn't pull out a MacBook Pro... Granted they had to be running Windows on campus, but I am sure they were running OS X at home, else why have a MacBook Pro at all?
post #39 of 68

Haaaaaaahahahahahaha!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #40 of 68
Samsung has shamelessly and successfully copied a lot from Apple. I am heavily biased towards Apple on most things because I like their products so much.

But trials still need to be fair. They always need to be fair, no matter what anyone thinks about the relative merits of the parties. Neither Apple or Samsung should be used as examples in information videos in a trial in which either of them is a party.

Apple Insider, you are normally pro-Apple but with a clearer attempt at being balanced than most fan sites. In this case you are making a tempest out of a teapot. Meh.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices