or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury to hear extended testimony due to federal appeals court ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury to hear extended testimony due to federal appeals court ruling

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Jurors in the second Apple v. Samsung patent trial in California, who were scheduled to begin deliberations early next week, will now hear an additional two hours of testimony clarifying a key phrase used in one of Apple's patents-in-suit.

Apple Data Detectors


Just as the Apple v. Samsung case was winding down, presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Friday said she will give each side an extra hour to address the implications of a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that same day, reports The Verge.

While the CAFC ruling deals with a separate action between Apple and Motorola, there is overlap with the California case in Apple's '647 patent covering "quick links" or "data detectors." With its decision, the CAFC overturned a prior dismissal by Judge Richard Posner, essentially reviving the Motorola case.

As noted by Re/code, the federal appeals court's ruling disagreed with Apple's claim construction of its '647 patent. Specifically, the court sided with Judge Posner's definition of a particular patent claim involving an "analyzer server," which the jurist described as "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client."

Because the Apple v. Samsung jury was given a different definition of analyzer servers, as presented by Apple, clarification is needed to render a sound decision. To that end, two expert witnesses, Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry and University of North Carolina professor Kevin Jeffay, will be called in to offer testimony.

Apple and Samsung were originally scheduled to offer their respective two-hour closing arguments on Monday, though the timeline has shifted presentation to Tuesday with jury deliberations to follow.

In its case against Samsung, Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages for lost profits and royalties on five alleged infringed patents. Throughout the trial, Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million assuming 37 million infringing devices.
post #2 of 45
Oops...
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/19/galaxy-s5-water-damage/
post #3 of 45
F Jackie, and samsung too.
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

F Jackie, and samsung too.


I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Oops...
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/19/galaxy-s5-water-damage/


I clicked on the link. The author updates it somewhat here.

 

http://phandroid.com/2014/04/21/galaxy-s5-ip67-meaning/

 

I found that from your initial link. Anyway the protection doesn't sound all that useful. It's like what you used to get with cheap watches.

post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

F Jackie, and samsung too.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?

 

 

I'm assuming djkikrome is a Howard Stern fan referring to Jackie the Jokeman. 

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #6 of 45
Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million

Should we believe the thief
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

 

 

I'm assuming djkikrome is a Howard Stern fan referring to Jackie the Jokeman. 


Thanks. I don't listen to Howard Stern, so I didn't catch that possible reference.

post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Thanks. I don't listen to Howard Stern, so I didn't catch that possible reference.

That's a old reference. Not many people would know it.
"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 #9 of 45
The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
Edited by EricTheHalfBee - 4/26/14 at 10:36pm
post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the a Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machine.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

Great points - totally agree.
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by comley View Post

Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million

Should we believe the thief

Do you mean the good thief or the bad thief ? Or do you really believe that Apple has never copied patented algorithms registered to other third parties and that all the court decisions that found Apple to have wilfully infringed were a communist plot :-) or made by Judges and Juries paid to hate Apple. ?

 

Just wondering /s

post #12 of 45
Samson rips off many companies they are really good at copying other products
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !
Edited by comley - 4/27/14 at 1:26am
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by comley View Post

Samson rips off many companies they are really good at copying other products
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !

Of course you buy Samsung products .. they are inside almost every device on the market to some extent. 

 

But I take your point and you are quite entitled to hold any view that you find appropriate. I just think it is naive to believe that ethical considerations play any big role, despite the incantations to the contrary, in any company who'se driving motive is profit or "shareholder value". Its about money.

 

I frankly don't find Apple or Samsung or any of the others for that matter, have a monopoly on being the good guys.

post #14 of 45

Samsung is a good company to deal with and their products last quite a long time.

post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

Of course you buy Samsung products .. they are inside almost every device on the market to some extent. 

But I take your point and you are quite entitled to hold any view that you find appropriate. I just think it is naive to believe that ethical considerations play any big role, despite the incantations to the contrary, in any company who'se driving motive is profit or "shareholder value". Its about money.

I frankly don't find Apple or Samsung or any of the others for that matter, have a monopoly on being the good guys.

Components in devices I buy like the iPhone yes I can't help that . But their product line I do not purchase any more !
Edited by comley - 4/27/14 at 4:53am
post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Samsung is a good company to deal with and their products last quite a long time.
Yes they are cheap and convenient and sometimes they are good !
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

Would manually calling "find and replace" be considered an instance of a server? Linkify recognizes links in a body of text only because the programmer explicitly invokes "addLinks()" on the TextView:

TextView noteView =(TextView) findViewById(R.id.noteview);
noteView.setText(someContent);
Linkify.addLinks(noteView,Linkify.ALL);

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html

 

And the developer documentation describes Linkify as essentially a collection of search-and-replace functions:

"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. " (http://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html) So it's up to the developer to decide what patterns he wants to search for; Linkify is just a general tool not unlike the unix sed utility. What part of this system would fall under the patent claims? Is it the part about using regular expressions? Since regular expressions were invented to let one search for any pattern, it would seem strange to prohibit one from using them to search for particular strings, such as "*.com" That would be like claiming that using quicksort to sort a particular array of integers is somehow novel or patentable when quicksort is designed to sort any array of items which can be ordered.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/28/14 at 6:54am
post #18 of 45
Court of Appeals really stuck it to Apple.
post #19 of 45
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?

 

 

“Did I tell you to steal the iPhone? Who told you to steal the iPhone? No one told you to steal the iPhone!”

“Is that going to be a problem, Jackie?”
“Yeah, it’s gonna be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them!”

 

Though, really, Samsung’s lawyers can be represented better by Lionel Hutz.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

That was exactly what I was thinking. But I wonder how the courts will define the term "server" if it is not explicitly defined in the patent application? Do they let it be broadly defined or strict such as a remote piece of hardware only? Seems to me that if Apple implements it in a certain way before the question came up that that method should be included in the definition where there is a question as it serves as an example on how the patent is implemented.
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?


I clicked on the link. The author updates it somewhat here.

 

http://phandroid.com/2014/04/21/galaxy-s5-ip67-meaning/

 

I found that from your initial link. Anyway the protection doesn't sound all that useful. It's like what you used to get with cheap watches.

 

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

 

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

 

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

post #22 of 45
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

 

Sounds like you need to find yourself a different company website to whine about on.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post
 

 

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

 

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

 

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

And that's why you are a perfect candidate for an Android phone. Which begs the question - what are you doing on an Applecentric site?
Right - FUD.
Thank you for playing, and we have some fabulous parting gifts for you....

post #24 of 45

Trolling for Sammy, that's what he's doing.

"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 #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The proper definition of an analyzer server as it relates to this patent will be "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." That's not the way Apple wants it translated but it may not really matter anyway. There's a good chance that all jurors won't clearly understand it and they're the ones making the call.

So then a thread that acts as the analyzer server and another thread that's the client. Simple, any App that can do this function infringes.
post #27 of 45
These poor jurors (I say 'poor' in sympathy, meaning how much they have to comprehend) will be able to apply for jobs citing this case as their education!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

Remember many Samsung phone owners are still young enough to drool so I can see the need for that water resistance attempt.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post
 

 

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

 

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

 

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

 

It hasn't been shown whether Samsung honors the warranty on water damage. Somehow I doubt it under the standard warranty, but that can be said for basically any of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That's a old reference. Not many people would know it.

  That may be why I missed it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

 

“Did I tell you to steal the iPhone? Who told you to steal the iPhone? No one told you to steal the iPhone!”

“Is that going to be a problem, Jackie?”
“Yeah, it’s gonna be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them!”

 

Though, really, Samsung’s lawyers can be represented better by Lionel Hutz.

 

 

I actually forgot about that one. It's from Seinfeld right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post
 

 

It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.

 

Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.

 

Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.

 

I only added that because the link from his link provided more detail. Either company is likely to void your warranty in the case of liquid damage. What he linked was just commentary on the effectiveness of the aforementioned water resistance, although it had little to do  with the thread.

post #30 of 45
I am getting sick tried hearing of South Korean Samsung employees. So I feel like to fire South Korean samsung employees because they are big troublemakers with their shit galaxy phones.
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.

The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.

More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:

 

A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.

 

A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.

 

Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.

 

If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.

post #32 of 45
Apple could always file a continuation-in-part on the problematic patent and modify it to clarify the analyzer server language, then sue Samsung again.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

Samsung is a good company to deal with and their products last quite a long time.

 

 

Samsung takes a dig at iPhone's camera, saying the S5 takes photos at twice the resolution:

http://tinyurl.com/S5-Camera-Better-Ad

 

 

Some Samsung S5 phones affected with non-functioning cameras:

http://tinyurl.com/S5-Non-functioning-Camera

 

 

Oops! They did it again!!

post #34 of 45

The term "server" has nothing to do with separate computers. If you use a Mac you're looking at windows drawn by a process called WindowServer for example. Open Activity Monitor and search for server. I have 7 entries. And there are many more that don't include the word server in their name.

 

We have more than 10 virtual machines in our Exchange server environment at work). Each one is actually one or more processes within the ESXi hypervisor. They maybe running on the same physical computer. They may not (they aren't by the way). But being a process within another piece of software doesn't make them any less capable of filling the definition of a server.

 

Any definition of server against Apple because the server and client run on the same computer, or on the same cpu/core, or in the same process or even in the same thread is fundamentally incorrect by any measure in Computer Science.

post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post

More of a shame if Apple get hung out to dry based on ignorance. In the interests of dispelling some of that there is a very strict definition of client-server architecture and it does not rely on which side sends data to the other. Oddly, it also does not rely on which side stores data either. i.e It is not a matter of data direction. Here is the definition:

A server is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it publishes a service port and awaits a connection. In TCP-IP UNIX terms, it does "listen()" followed by one or more "accept()" system calls.

A client is a process that is involved in interprocess communication. It is distinguished by the fact that it initiates a connection to another process' service port. In TCP-IP UNIX terms it does a "connect()" system call.

Once the interprocess connection has been made it is completely irrelevant which process serves up the data and which consumes it. The communications are completely bi-directional. It is also not relevant if the processes are on the same machine or different machines. If the server is remote to the client and is behind a firewall the servers listening port must be exposed through the firewall for a successful client server connection.

If strict definitions are to be applied, client-server mechanisms refer solely to the initial interprocess communication connection and have nothing to do with data itself nor where the server and client processes reside.

When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/28/14 at 6:08am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 45
Let me fix this for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the

Implementation of the patent would involve
Quote:
a separate and distinct "server"

And please get over how old a patent is.

If they can protect Mickey 90? Years
They can protect Apple for 17.
And no protection promotes no progress.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post

Let me fix this for you
Implementation of the patent would involve
And please get over how old a patent is.

If they can protect Mickey 90? Years
They can protect Apple for 17.
And no protection promotes no progress.

Copyright is different from patents. Mickey Mouse is copyrighted and trademarked, not patented.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Copyright is different from patents. Mickey Mouse is copyrighted and trademarked, not patented.

Did Walt Disney create Mickey?
Has the US Constitution "protected" his rights for XX years?

Potato potatoe
post #39 of 45
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post
Potato potatoe

 

No, they’re completely different. You are wrong. End of discussion.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

When the patent was applied for over 15 years ago in 1996 I believe the intent was that a separate and distinct "server" would be involved. I think you do too. That the claim construction today could be broadly read and extend to technology the original inventor did not anticipate doesn't make it correct. In any event whatever anyone here believes could possibly be construed as an "analyzer server" doesn't matter. A court will determine what the intent would have been since apparently no one else can agree on it.

I don't pretend to know what was in the mind of the inventor nor, legally speaking, does it matter. Nor does it matter what you or I think we know. All that matters is whether the patent was properly written and whether Samsung can invalidate it for prior art or some other technical reason.

All I am trying to point out is that from a strictly definitional perspective Samsung cannot invalidate the patent by claiming client-server implies separate machines. Such an implication has never existed. When I started writing client-server code over 30 years ago (before we even had sockets), client-server architecture was a wonderful way to partition a project, to force modularity and separation of data structures. It was only as computers became cheaper that we could even afford more than one. The benefits of being able to use the UNIX scheduler to handle multi-tasking and simultaneously serve function to multiple clients were compelling in their own right. Heck, all we had in those days were teletypes and acoustic couplers running at 110 baud. Who even wanted to run off-machine services in such an environment.

Even before UNIX brought ease of programming to a whole new class of programmers, intramachine client-server architecture was well established. I remember a Café system of card readers and teletypes (the clients) where jobs were submitted via card and punched tape to server software that would compile and execute the submitted jobs. All of this was run in a single mainframe environment and embodied all the features of a modern client-server architecture - just more constrained by the available technology.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury to hear extended testimony due to federal appeals court ruling