or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases - Page 2

post #41 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Was slide to unlock invented by Google, or did Eric Schmidt take the invention from an Apple BOD meeting and give it to Google before it was patented?

Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.

in your scenario...why did Google wait until well into 2009 to add anything like Slide-to-unlock to Android?

 

Considering the codes can be completely and utterly different yet something can still infringe on a software patent it wouldn't take anything more than seeing something to mimic it even remotely....stealing wouldn't even be necessary...especially over 2 yeas after the public display of the feature at Mac World in 2007.

 

Also it wouldn't matter if Google had a cute lil slide to unlock thingy on some prototype device in the year 2002 unless they had ample evidence of when it was created...remember the software patent wars didn't really become as exhaustive as they are until relatively recently. A lot of things that COULD'VE been patented probably weren't even thought about when it came to patenting. "Pulling an image from one area to another area to initiate an unlock action on a screen" wouldn't have crossed many people's minds as a patent.

 

Apple played the game properly and now we have people arguing over how something that doesn't look like something and doesn't really work exactly like something is a total 100% stealing of something.

post #42 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.

Unbelievable. These questions are absurd. By reading the jury instructions they should know that the evidence presented is what they have to work with. My jaw dropped reading these. What does Jobs' directive have anything to do with this case? Are these jurors really buying into the argument that Google is the proper defendant, not Samsung?

Question 2: I would think they were chosen based on the fact that they are the patents Apple believes Samsung infringed and are the most important. It seems like the jury is trying to figure out if Apple execs made notice of the infringing patents, or was it the lawyers who told the Apple execs that their patents are being infringed. The question almost implies that if Apple's mgmt team didn't notice the infringement, why should the jurors consider it so obvious. You could also imply by one of the questions that a juror is thinking "Apple decided on a holy war, then filed suit without stating what their patent infringement claims were in the suit." That thought process is hard to believe. Thoughts?

Question 3: the implication here may be that a juror believes that Samsung may have purchased the patents they claim were infringed solely as a way to retaliate with a counterclaim. Samsung needed something, and they purchased the patents, knowing there was a possibility of infringement on the purchased patents, so Samsung could say "hey, Apple copies too. How can you fault us when Apple is implementing similar copy-cat patents in their devices." Thoughts?

Questionu 4: looks awfully good for Apple. Implication here; Apple told Samsung they were infringing and Samsung ignored them. Also, it looks absolutely horrible that NONE of the big brass at Samsung showed up at trial.

Question 5: looks like a straw-vote is coming. Or, each juror could be filling in damage amounts. They'll add 'em up and divide by 8. 1smile.gif probably just for the stated purpose though.
Edited by Eric38 - 5/1/14 at 1:06am
post #43 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....

Do you think these are valid questions? Did you read the jury instructions? Most jurors know you can't ask for more evidence when they receive the case.
post #44 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

sounds like someone in the jury is trying too hard to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.   Someone would like to throw out Samsung patents if they can prove that they were only acquired to fight against Apple's lawsuit.  I think the fact that they acquired them at a late date, and brought them here, already proves that. They just have to reason it out. They don't need the evidence they think they need. Just look at the date of acquistion.

Exactly my thoughts on that question. Jurors are looking for an answer to what Samsung's response was when they received the infringement notice from Apple. They can't be too happy about the unavailability of Samsung's mgmt at trial.
post #45 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So Koh directed the jury back to exhibits already presented. That's pretty vague. Was it a sweeping comment simply telling them "stick to what was presented to you" or did Koh mention specific exhibits that were relevant to the questions asked? Depending on how you read it you could suggest the jury is going off on a tangent (looking for things that weren't talked about) or were just asking for information on something that was actually presented during trial.

The amount of evidence presented is going to be substantial, yet we've really only seen small bits and pieces (the interesting stuff). Just because we haven't seen these things mentioned doesn't mean they weren't. And unless Koh specifically states that they can't ask questions about things that weren't presented as evidence then I don't think we can assume the jury is on a fishing expedition.

Does anyone have a transcript of what Koh actually said?

The Judge doesn't talk to the jurors after they enter the jury room. The entirety of the communications consist of those 5 notes passed back and forth.
post #46 of 88
The questions make it seems like someone have heard the phrase regarding Jobs "nuclear war" against Google/Android.. Although he said it at his deathbed to the author of his biography, and not at the point when they initiated the lawsuits.

Glad Koh shut it down, and I think it will be hard for that one juror to convince the rest of the jury about this. Apple will rightfully win. Heres hoping Samsung has to pay dearly for stealing patents.
post #47 of 88
Does anyone know if there is an indemnification agreement between google and samsung?

If so, and google is going to take the hit, maybe google stockholders might want to know?
post #48 of 88
Question 3 is interesting. It could mean a juror is thinking " Samsung's attorneys recommend they go out and spend a few million on a couple patents that Apple may be infringing , file a counterclaim for what amounts to peanuts relative to the amount Apple is asking for. Samsung, by doing this, is trying to persuade us that patents aren't worth $2billion dollars, but just a few million." Jurors don't like being toyed with.
post #49 of 88
I knew about two ex apple employees (Andy Rubin and Eric Schmidt) are troublemakers. The google did hired two ex apple employees troublemakers.
post #50 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Rubin was the ex-Apple employee.

I don't know why Samsung never brought him up, linked as he was to Apple, Android and Google, he even worked on some of the same features.

The actual claim in an Apple/HTC lawsuit was that he worked at Apple answering to the same department heads who worked on the "Real-time API" patent. Apple never went so far as to claim Rubin personally worked on it or any other features that would eventually become part of iOS 14 years or more later. His time at Apple was relatively short and a long time ago.

Career
Carl Zeiss AG, robotics engineer, 1986–1989.
Apple Inc., manufacturing engineer, 1989–1992.
General Magic, engineer, 1992–1995. An Apple spin-off where he participated in developing Magic Cap, an operating system and interface for hand-held mobile devices.
MSN TV, engineer, 1995–1999. When Magic Cap failed, Rubin joined Artemis Research, founded by Steve Perlman, which became WebTV and was eventually acquired by Microsoft.
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Android Inc., co-founder 2003–2005.
Google, 2005–present. Senior Vice President in charge of Android for most of his tenure. Since December 2013, managing the robotics division of Google (which includes companies bought by Google, such as Boston Dynamics).
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/14 at 5:34am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?

 

Amazingly, they might actually be trying for justice.

 

I am sure that someone will set them straight pretty soon. The American Justice system doesn't bother with justice anymore.

post #52 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.

 

Where everything was held in the cloud, which sometimes went down, with disastrous consequences for people's data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post
 

 

Amazingly, they might actually be trying for justice.

 

I am sure that someone will set them straight pretty soon. The American Justice system doesn't bother with justice anymore.

 

Best "justice" money can buy.

 

Justice is a commodity.

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 #53 of 88

The one question proves the jury must have fallen asleep, They are asking how the 5 patent were chosen, simple the judge order Apple to pear down their claim, Steve Jobs had no input on that he has had already passed. Apple originally want to sue on a larger number of patents and the Judge wanted nothing to do with it. It is called pile it high and deep, Apple did not want to limit their case to just one patent they want to use them all since one single patent may not be a buying decision factor, but the combine features in question could be the difference in a buyers decision and this is Apple's whole case.

 

I also read elsewhere, where someone did a much better analysis of court case than AI, Apple is fact spent significant time on the fact that Google was no on trail, since it was solely Samsung's decisions to ship products with Android and the features which were infringing. The point was that Samsung had chooses and knew prior to shipping those product they infringe on Apples IP. This is the point I was making in the past, Google did not forces any manufacturer to use Android, and the fact that Google was Indemnifying them has  no baring on this case since it was Samsung decision to use Android which put the liability on them.

post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

 

Considering the codes can be completely and utterly different yet something can still infringe on a software patent it wouldn't take anything more than seeing something to mimic it even remotely....stealing wouldn't even be necessary...especially over 2 yeas after the public display of the feature at Mac World in 2007.

 

Also it wouldn't matter if Google had a cute lil slide to unlock thingy on some prototype device in the year 2002 unless they had ample evidence of when it was created...remember the software patent wars didn't really become as exhaustive as they are until relatively recently. A lot of things that COULD'VE been patented probably weren't even thought about when it came to patenting. "Pulling an image from one area to another area to initiate an unlock action on a screen" wouldn't have crossed many people's minds as a patent.

 

^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.

 

The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).

post #55 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Where everything was held in the cloud, which sometimes went down, with disastrous consequences for people's data.

I think the "disaster" you refer to came sometime after Microsoft bought Danger and long after Rubin had moved on.

EDIT: Why yes it was.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173593/tmobile_takes_hit_for_sidekick_fail.html

Is Microsoft's current mobile experience influenced by innovations from Rubin? 1rolleyes.gif
http://www.pcworld.com/article/144662/article.html
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/14 at 6:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 88
I don't see what his state of mind or thinking has to do with it. In fact, it makes zero difference. Samsung clearly infringed (is that even in question at this point?) and now it's a question of how much they have to pay.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.

 

The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).

 

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?

 

You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.

 

It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.

 

Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.

post #58 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't see what his state of mind or thinking has to do with it. In fact, it makes zero difference. Samsung clearly infringed (is that even in question at this point?) and now it's a question of how much they have to pay.

Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).

 

Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?

post #59 of 88
Originally Posted by Eric38 View Post
Question 2: I would think they were chosen based on the fact that they are the patents Apple believes Samsung infringed and are the most important. 

 

Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #60 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?

Can't be legal?? 1confused.gif I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 88
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Can't be legal?? 1confused.gifI can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.

 

How many times have illegal things happened to them and they’ve been forced to listen?

 

So it’s legal for a judge to say, “You know what? You’ve murdered too many people. Let’s only try you for 5 out of the 20 murders,” now? 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The actual claim in an Apple/HTC lawsuit was that he worked at Apple answering to the same department heads who worked on the "Real-time API" patent. Apple never went so far as to claim Rubin personally worked on it or any other features that would eventually become part of iOS 14 years or more later. His time at Apple was relatively short and a long time ago.

Career
Carl Zeiss AG, robotics engineer, 1986–1989.
Apple Inc., manufacturing engineer, 1989–1992.
General Magic, engineer, 1992–1995. An Apple spin-off where he participated in developing Magic Cap, an operating system and interface for hand-held mobile devices.
MSN TV, engineer, 1995–1999. When Magic Cap failed, Rubin joined Artemis Research, founded by Steve Perlman, which became WebTV and was eventually acquired by Microsoft.
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Android Inc., co-founder 2003–2005.
Google, 2005–present. Senior Vice President in charge of Android for most of his tenure. Since December 2013, managing the robotics division of Google (which includes companies bought by Google, such as Boston Dynamics).

Please. Relatively short time? So 3 years is too short to see how things are working or to get some ideas for your own personal use? Long time ago? Most current operating systems are based on ideas that are 20+ years old. This isn't a smartphone patent before anyone thought of smartphones - this is an OS level patent.

The HTC trial never completed as they settled. So we don't know what Apple would have brought up as evidence regarding Rubin. It must be more than "Rubin worked at Apple so therefore he stole" as Apple thought it was significant enough. You don't go into trial without evidence or vague conspiracies. You need a smoking gun.

When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

How many times have illegal things happened to them and they’ve been forced to listen?

So it’s legal for a judge to say, “You know what? You’ve murdered too many people. Let’s only try you for 5 out of the 20 murders,” now? 
Happens all the time. We had a case here where the trial was too large to manage because of the evidence and number of murder victims. They split the case up and grouped the victims together in such a way as to make things more manageable.

I've mentioned this before - the issue isn't restricting the number of patents in a case - it's the time it takes to get to trial. In time-sensitive IP cases they need a special court where you can fast track the case while IP is still relevant. If this happened, then Apple could have already tried 20 or more patents in several smaller cases long ago. And Samsung wouldn't be able to game the system.
post #64 of 88

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).

 

Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?

 

Linkify is exactly what Apple describes in their patent, an API to make structured matches on an open data set. Yes it is quite vague, as it should be since the patent is for pattern matching. I don't find their vagueness surprising, the patent was granted in 1996 and it makes sense to leave it open for future uses. Who knows what type of data we may need to link in the future. Originally they described addresses as the primary use, that's not to say it can't be used for other things down the line. Their patent covers their current implementation and future ones.

 

Calling either implementation nothing more than search/replace is a bit of a stretch isn't it? We both know regular expressions are more than that.

post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?

 

I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.

post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.
How do you know where Rubin actually worked?

"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."

That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

How do you know where Rubin actually worked?

"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."

That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.

...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.

 

The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).

 

And ^this is exactly where most software engineers can't see the forest from the trees.

 

If you reduce any product down to it's smallest parts, it becomes very fuzzy what is actually protectable by a manufacturer.  However, there certainly are things which make a product "unique" in the minds of the people who use them.  They are small details, but they are important.

 

Most of the time it's in the design details -- the way a particular car body is shaped, for example.  So that's why Apple patents design details like slide-to-lock and bounce scrolling instead of the algorithms on which they are built.  It's a straw-man argument to reduce these design details down to the algorithms and then state that they can't be patented because the algorithms were invented and published before.  No one notices the algorithms, but they do notice how they are realized into tangible, unique features.  It's not a trivial thing to turn a simple image processing algorithm into a unique design feature which sets your product apart from others.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spjonez View Post
 

 

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?

 

You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.

 

It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.

 

Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.

Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.

post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


How do you know where Rubin actually worked?

"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."

That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.

Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.

post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.

Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/14 at 1:11pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.

 

I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.

 

Gotta love the Internet.

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 #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.

Gotta love the Internet.

I never knew you had worked at Apple. 1hmm.gif You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?

Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin. What we do know is this:

- Patent trials are very expensive and require a large investment in time and money.
- Patent trials are limited in scope to a small number of patents, and so companies suing will carefully choose which patents they want to use.

Apple brought up this patent against HTC. Apparently Apple thinks this patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it. You don't invest money and make claims without some significant evidence to back them up.


Based on the events so far any reasonable person would conclude Apple knows something about Rubin and his time at Apple. Certainly much more than anyone here knows. And certainly enough to go to trial over it. However despite this we gave people like you "inventing" scenarios to try by any means possible to minimize Rubin's time at Apple and imply he likely didn't have access to, or knowledge of this patent.

Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin . . . patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it.

Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.

.

What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.

FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/1/14 at 4:55pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I never knew you had worked at Apple. 1hmm.gif You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?

 

Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.

 

Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.

 

Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.

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 #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.

Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.

Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.

Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.

 

More a statement on your ready acceptance.

 

Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?

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 #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

More a statement on your ready acceptance.

Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?

It's ofttimes not all that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's nothing in his post to raise suspicion and he's demonstrably a fan of Apple and their products if you look at his post history.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Can't be legal?? 1confused.gif I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.

 

Judge Koh gave Apple a choice - limit your infringement claims to a few patents and get to trial quickly, or make multiple claims and have the trial delayed for another year. Apple chose to limit their claims to 5 patents, as they could not afford to wait another year to stop Samsung's copying. 

 

The pre-trial negotiations also included Apple giving up the right to object when Samsung made false claims about Apple's patents, such as 'Apple never used these patents in any iPhone'. I am not sure what Apple got in return for these concessions except a earlier trial date.

 

All this is perfectly legal, but not entirely kosher. Another example of the difference between the law and justice, especially in Judge Koh's courtroom.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases