or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products

post #1 of 78
Thread Starter 
U.S. Judge Lucy H. Koh has overruled objections raised by Samsung regarding an instructional video providing jurors an introduction to the patent system.



AppleInsider exclusively reported on Saturday that Samsung had raised objections to the "how patents work" video, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.

Apple had proposed to use the latest version of "The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors," a video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system.

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 new version of video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."

Today, Judge Koh issued a ruling noting that "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."
post #2 of 78
So long as Samsung is profiting from copying Apple's IP, they will do absolutely everything and anything to drag this through the court system at a snail's pace.

Shameful company. I absolutely, steadfastly refuse to directly give them any of my business.
Apple moving to another supplier for its components can't come soon enough.
post #3 of 78
Ok now, samshit, STFU, motherfuckers!

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply
post #4 of 78

    Hopefully to be stated by Judge Koh

All right, that’s it. Overruled with prejudice. Overturned with prejudice. Denied with prejudice. Injunction with prejudice. Guilty with prejudice. And that 3x damages? Make it 15x. Imports banned with prejudice. Case dismissed with prejudice. And anything else prejudicable. I’ve had it with you people.

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 #5 of 78

I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better.  It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.

post #6 of 78

Awesome

post #7 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

So long as Samsung is profiting from copying Apple's IP, they will do absolutely everything and anything to drag this through the court system at a snail's pace.

Shameful company. I absolutely, steadfastly refuse to directly give them any of my business.
Apple moving to another supplier for its components can't come soon enough.

I couldn't agree more.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #8 of 78
It's the plaid's fault.
post #9 of 78
Don't worry, Sammy. Your products will still be shown on plagiarism and willful infringement videos.
post #10 of 78
Shameful arrogant copying is all Samesung does and I too avoid buying anything with their rip off name attached to it. Get a different supplier Apple ASAP and wake up you people who buy the Korean knock off when all you're doing is buying a cheap imitation product. What especially makes me annoyed with their crap is to steal from Apple then turn around and make insane claims that their copy is better when it's actually junk in comparison.
post #11 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post

It's the plaid's fault.

 

I see that jury shot and think I'm watching, ``Kentucky Fried Movie.''

post #12 of 78

The problem with posting nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence on the internet is that it takes away all the mystique...
Reply
The problem with posting nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence on the internet is that it takes away all the mystique...
Reply
post #13 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I see that jury shot and think I'm watching, ``Kentucky Fried Movie.''

Best shower scene ever. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 78
That jury photo is stock footage from 1970 surely? Look at the hair styles and clothes!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #15 of 78
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post
That jury photo is stock footage from 1970 surely? Look at the hair styles and clothes!

 

I was going to make a Sanford & Son joke, actually.

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 #16 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I was going to make a Sanford & Son joke, actually.

Dyno-mite!

Watchoo lookin' at Willis!
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 #17 of 78

Apple should propose that Samsung be sent for psychological testing. That turd of a company is past despair and lewd irrelevance. Maybe its a language deficiency (in whatever language it uses to justify the space and time it takes up in every parcel of life it squanders from, to and between its prattle to court). Maybe its council needs special council assistance; I know for a fact that the deficient of mind and reason have court appointed attendants to assist in keeping feet and other appendages out of mouths. A special court bopper paddle is used in Canada but I am sure a heftier device is use state side.

 

It is only my gentle care and concern for Samsung that urges me to their assistance in their desperate hours of need, 24-seven.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #18 of 78
It's like she flips a coin.
post #19 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post
 

I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better.  It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.

 

And possibly (unlikely) if Samsung had made that argument, they may have won.

 

But ...

post #20 of 78

Schweeeeet!!!!

The judge is going in dry!!!!

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #21 of 78

Honestly, this decision worries me a little. The trial doesn't require the video, and including the video (if appellate judges disagree with Koh that it may prejudice the jury) may provide Samsung with grounds for appeal if they lose. Better not to show it. There are other ways to introduce the jurors to patent issues. 

post #22 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

    Hopefully to be stated by Judge Koh;

"All right, that’s it. Overruled with prejudice. Overturned with prejudice. Denied with prejudice. Injunction with prejudice. Guilty with prejudice. And that 3x damages? Make it 15x. Imports banned with prejudice. Case dismissed with prejudice. And anything else prejudicable. I’ve had it with you people"

Yeah, but what is she going to tell Samsung?!?

/S

LOL

post #23 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
 

Yeah, but what is she going to tell Samsung?!?

/S

LOL


I think she will tell Samsung: Ben Dover...

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #24 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

That jury photo is stock footage from 1970 surely? Look at the hair styles and clothes!

And I could have sworn that it came from one of the trials in East Texas a couple of years ago... goes to show ya... what though I'm not sure? 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #25 of 78
The is what I have to say about this ruling...

In the words of Homer Simpson, WOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
post #26 of 78
Why are you guys all so down on Samsung? You must admit that they DO make AWESOME televisions, right?
15" 2.3 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, Unibody Macbook Pro

iPhone 5 (Slate, 64 GB) [au by KDDI, Japan] (I'm going Docomo with the iPhone 6!)
iPad Air (Wifi, 32 GB)
Reply
15" 2.3 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, Unibody Macbook Pro

iPhone 5 (Slate, 64 GB) [au by KDDI, Japan] (I'm going Docomo with the iPhone 6!)
iPad Air (Wifi, 32 GB)
Reply
post #27 of 78
If it includes Apple products it is unfair.
post #28 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjaro View Post

Why are you guys all so down on Samsung? You must admit that they DO make AWESOME televisions, right?

What's awesome about them? The screen is the best in some models, but heir designs are often ugly compared to others.
post #29 of 78
With the world looking on it does seem more than a bit strange that the FEDS 'an Overview for Jurors' included the main contention in their video.

So looking through the round world window Apple have them where they want them.
That is, right in a square corner.
post #30 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post
 

I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better.  It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.

I watched the new one only and found it to be concise and very helpful. It was, if anything, too elementary and if a jury has any difficulty in understanding that video they need to be excused for being too dense. Believe me, if I can understand it, anyone can. :lol:

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

If it includes Apple products it is unfair.

It shows many types of computers, Apple is just one of many ....it's completely fair.....unlike the slavish copying of Samsung.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Honestly, this decision worries me a little. The trial doesn't require the video, and including the video (if appellate judges disagree with Koh that it may prejudice the jury) may provide Samsung with grounds for appeal if they lose. Better not to show it. There are other ways to introduce the jurors to patent issues. 

Do you really think it won't be appealed one way or another?
post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Do you really think it won't be appealed one way or another?

FOSSPatents believes Koh's decision to allow what he refers to as a "propaganda video for Apple's innovative capacity" may easily result in a retrial. and if that doesn't Apple's royalty demands will.

Note that I've often questioned some of his opinions.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/31/14 at 5:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

If it includes Apple products it is unfair.

it includes many products from different inventors, where are all their competitors crying into their empty milk bottles??

 

some confusion here about the video, its not made specifically for any Apple V Samsung trail, it is just a general info video, to be shown to jurors relating to ANY patent dispute.

 

Now, that I have seen it though, I didn't realise that Apple invented the tractor and plough…. well, you learn something new everyday !!! 

post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FOSSPatents believes....

I doubt anyone knows what he believes. He has been getting a very bad rap for being consistent in his "paid bias".
I think the Foss guy has likely financially milked his past for all its worth and knows he needs to tame his bias.
post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post


I doubt anyone knows what he believes. He has been getting a very bad rap for being consistent in his "paid bias".
I think the Foss guy has likely financially milked his past for all its worth and knows he needs to tame his bias.

Well Mueller's only posting about 1/3 as much material lately as he was two months ago and earlier because he's so busy writing an Android app that may be released on iOS as some point in the future.  I think he said once that it was a game, but I'm not sure.  He's always very vague when he mentions it at the end of blog posts.

post #37 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjaro View Post

Why are you guys all so down on Samsung? You must admit that they DO make AWESOME televisions, right?

No. But I like the display on my iPhone 5. 1smile.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Do you really think it won't be appealed one way or another?

 

Oh, I'm sure there will be appeals, probably by both sides, regardless of how the case goes. What I'm worried about is that this video -- which Apple does not need to present -- may give Samsung grounds for a successful appeal. 

 

Chances are Samsung will appeal Koh's order now, before the trial, but they could let it linger to use it to undermine an unfavorable decision in the broader case.

post #39 of 78
Quote:
"Why are you guys all so down on Samsung? You must admit that they DO make AWESOME televisions, right?"

 

1. Because Android is the only competitor to Apple in smartphones and tablets.

2. Because Samsung is CURRENTLY the only Android vendor with a large market share.

3. Because Apple fans wrongly use 1+2 to use faulty "if p then q, then if q then p" fallacy to conclude that had Samsung not copied Apple devices two generations of Samsung products ago, then Apple would enjoy the same total dominance of the smart phone and tablet market share that they enjoyed in the MP3 market share with the I-Pod.

 

Why is "if p then q, then if q then p" thing false? Because the reason why Android is viable is not Samsung's copyright infrigement. Instead, the copyright infringement is merely a reason - possibly the main reason - why Samsung is the most successful Android device line. These folks ignore that had Samsung not copied Apple, another Android vendor (or some combination of vendors) would have simply taken its place. Why? Because the main reason for the success of Samsung (and Android) is not the copying of Apple (at least not copying them beyond such things as having touch screens and app stores, things which cannot be copyrighted, which we learned from Apple's failed lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows) but because Apple devices cost more than a significant portion of the market A) can afford or B) is willing to pay.

 

So, instead of comparing everything to the I-Pod, the one market that Apple was able to totally dominate, they ignore the more relevant comparisons, which includes PCs (for which Apple has plenty of competition) and set top boxes (ditto).


You can get a good Windows PC/laptop for half the cost of an Apple computer, so that market is never going to go away. It was reduced significantly, granted, but by (Apple and Android) tablets, NOT by significantly more expensive Apple computers. Streamers? Ditto. Roku enjoys basically the same market share as Apple TV because 3 of the 4 Roku set top boxes (as well as both streaming stick options) cost considerably less than Apple TV. People usually buy one of the cheaper boxes, learn to like it, and THEN upgrade to the only Roku that costs comparable to the Apple TV.

And why did Apple dominate the MP3 player market? Because that was the only one where Apple was willing to come out with a low-end device, the I-Pod shuffle. The latest iterations of the Shuffle costs $50 and can be had for as little as $35. The Shuffle made it impossible for competitors to make cheaper but still capable and quality MP3 players to introduce users to a low-end alternative brand that would keep them hooked as they introduced better and higher-end devices. In other words, there was no reason to buy anything other than the best device, especially after Apple made I-Tunes available on cheaper Windows machines.


Whether Samsung infringed or not, there was still going to be a reason to buy an Android tablet or phone: cost. So if Samsung had not succeeded, Motorola or another Android vendor would have. Except that the other Android vendors did not so blatantly copy Apple devices, which means that Apple would not have had a legal tree to bark up and air their grievances against.

Samsung gives Apple partisans a reason to pretend that people who could not afford an Apple tablet or smartphone would have chosen to go without such devices entirely instead of simply choosing a device that looked "merely" 80% like an Apple product instead of 90% like Samsung's did. Which, of course, presumes that the vast majority of the American - and global - population has some "Apple or nothing!" mentality. Which is insane, because even if such a mentality is not their preference, adhering to it even if it means not having a device at all is not in their interests. It is in Apple's interests, of course, but it is not in the interests of the consumer. And consumers are always going to look out for themselves whenever they can.

 

And since consumers obviously benefit from having devices that they can actually afford as opposed to nothing at all, that is why Apple is never going to win a total, clear victory against Samsung or any other Android vendor. No country is going to leave a significant portion of their consumers unable to buy devices that they want. It is bad for the consumers (read voters in a democracy) and also bad for the economy (i.e. vendors who want to make money selling devices that their consumers want/need and can afford). And it is difficult to claim that Apple is somehow harmed by other companies serving market segments that Apple doesn't even want (other than maybe to sell them I-Pods).

 

Instead, the Android alternative has "encouraged" (forced) Apple to at least try to come up with somewhat cheaper devices for emerging markets. That move is good for the consumers and developing economies in those regions, and in the long term - as more consumers in those areas enter the middle and upper classes - good for Apple.

post #40 of 78
Quote:
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

Oh, I'm sure there will be appeals, probably by both sides, regardless of how the case goes. What I'm worried about is that this video -- which Apple does not need to present -- may give Samsung grounds for a successful appeal. 

 

Chances are Samsung will appeal Koh's order now, before the trial, but they could let it linger to use it to undermine an unfavorable decision in the broader case.


Seeing that the video is authorized and made available by the Federal Judicial Center (overseen by US judges), I doubt an appeal around the video itself would have any merit.  I wish I had read this yesterday as my good friend and his wife were over for dinner last night.  He's a retired IP attorney and current law professor who trains federal judges in how to conduct IP trials.  Could have asked him.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products