That ruling should silence one of the dumbest `prior art' arguments ever gone viral since these lawsuits began; and let us hope less arm chair IP Lawyers learn before they speak.
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
Quote:
In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.
(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)
Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.
BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation? I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?
(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)
Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.
BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation? I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?
Kay's Dynabook had a keyboard on it, but it was in a flat rectangular shape. It was to be programmed in Smalltalk.
The tablets in 2001 were to be programmed in HALtalk.
"Close the Case statement, HAL. HAL? HAL, Close the Case statement. HAL do you read me?"
This judge seems so eager to not only exclude Samsung's evidence, but keep the company from going public with information that the jury isn't going to see--evidence that's already publicly available. Imagine a murder trial where solid evidence of innocence that's been in the press is excluded because the prosecution won't have time to prepare a counter-argument. This is like that.
Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story. You can find them at:
Here's a summary of Samsung's rather impressive arguments in their defense, arguments that follow this remark:
"Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:
Quote:
1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung?s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys? communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”
2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.
3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)
In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs].
4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsung?s Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).
5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times,Huffington Post and CNET.
6. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression.
7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung?s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."
8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."
This is shaping up a bit like the Google Book Settlement in that lazy reporters, unwilling to read the actual settlement terms, repeated Google's deceptive talking points until those better informed mounted enough effective opposition to kill it. Except in this case it is Apple who is duping the clueless reporters.
This judge seems so eager to not only exclude Samsung's evidence, but keep the company from going public with information that the jury isn't going to see--evidence that's already publicly available. Imagine a murder trial where solid evidence of innocence that's been in the press is excluded because the prosecution won't have time to prepare a counter-argument. This is like that.
Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story. You can find them at:
Here's a summary of Samsung's rather impressive arguments in their defense, arguments that follow this remark:
"<span style="background-color:rgb(255,251,247);font-family:verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;">Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:</span>
This is shaping up a bit like the Google Book Settlement in that lazy reporters, unwilling to read the actual settlement terms, repeated Google's deceptive talking points until those better informed mounted enough effective opposition to kill it. Except in this case it is Apple who is duping the clueless reporters.
Most of the reporters are going on statements made in court. The only out-of-court statements have come from Samsung attorneys.
It appears you may have missed Groklaw's heavy pro-defense leaning in IP cases.
Might just be coincidental but.... ...if you piss off the judge... ...well, this sorta thing is gonna happen.
Again and again. And here's me thinking yanks don't do irony. Judge Lucy Koh, I bow in admiration.
I think it's becoming more obvious by the day, that Samsung and legal team know the situation is hopeless and are playing the long game by appearing to be amateurish - late submissions, hopeless appeals, knowing they will be rejected. All the while playing to the baying gallery and a few influential senators who will demand a retrial because of bias. Delay, delay and delay again. It's a dangerous game tho'.
How fucking embarrassing. At least now you can clearly call those defending Samsung's actions and statements at this point either insane, or without a shred of objectivity. Using science fiction movies as a defence is now ok? They're purposely making a mockery of the court, and being as sensational and duplitious as possible in order to muddy the waters.
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
You should recuse yourself as you've shown your ignorance on a number of occasions. Edit: Someone beat me to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story.
You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.
You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.
At least if they're biased (and regarding MS they may be) it's out of their beliefs and not because they're paid to be. Not all patent bloggers can say that.
Comments
Thank you for proving me right.
Samsung needs to bust out the Chewbacca defense, its the only way....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
"Dammit Jim, You know using a Stylus obviates this as Prior Art!"
This also clearly invalidates the "wedge shaped computer" patent for the MacBook Air. :-/
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I'm almost certain (haven't seen it in a while) that the actors never actually pick them up off the table
Poole is shown carrying one in one shot, but when he puts it down, its screen is white! Obviously it's just a front for a back-projected thing.
That ruling should silence one of the dumbest `prior art' arguments ever gone viral since these lawsuits began; and let us hope less arm chair IP Lawyers learn before they speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
Quote:
In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.
Hmm, right, DaHarder. TryHarder next time please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I curious what is considered prior artwork.
(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)
Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.
BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation? I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioinside
(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)
Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.
BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation? I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?
Kay's Dynabook had a keyboard on it, but it was in a flat rectangular shape. It was to be programmed in Smalltalk.
The tablets in 2001 were to be programmed in HALtalk.
"Close the Case statement, HAL. HAL? HAL, Close the Case statement. HAL do you read me?"
This judge seems so eager to not only exclude Samsung's evidence, but keep the company from going public with information that the jury isn't going to see--evidence that's already publicly available. Imagine a murder trial where solid evidence of innocence that's been in the press is excluded because the prosecution won't have time to prepare a counter-argument. This is like that.
Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story. You can find them at:
http://www.groklaw.net
Here's a summary of Samsung's rather impressive arguments in their defense, arguments that follow this remark:
"Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:
Quote:
1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung?s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys? communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”
2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.
3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)
In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs].
4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsung?s Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).
5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times,Huffington Post and CNET.
6. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression.
7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung?s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."
8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."
This is shaping up a bit like the Google Book Settlement in that lazy reporters, unwilling to read the actual settlement terms, repeated Google's deceptive talking points until those better informed mounted enough effective opposition to kill it. Except in this case it is Apple who is duping the clueless reporters.
Samsung's legal representative must be called Dave...
Out with the new, in with the old.
Anybody want to bet against me that this will be Samsung's next attempt to claim prior art...
One side repeatedly making absurd arguments does not make the judge partial.
Most of the reporters are going on statements made in court. The only out-of-court statements have come from Samsung attorneys.
It appears you may have missed Groklaw's heavy pro-defense leaning in IP cases.
...if you piss off the judge...
...well, this sorta thing is gonna happen.
Again and again.
And here's me thinking yanks don't do irony. Judge Lucy Koh, I bow in admiration.
I think it's becoming more obvious by the day, that Samsung and legal team know the situation is hopeless and are playing the long game by appearing to be amateurish - late submissions, hopeless appeals, knowing they will be rejected. All the while playing to the baying gallery and a few influential senators who will demand a retrial because of bias. Delay, delay and delay again.
It's a dangerous game tho'.
"Samsung tries to invalidate Apple's localization patents"
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
and AI should consider DaHarder to recuse him/herself for the same reason hehe
How fucking embarrassing. At least now you can clearly call those defending Samsung's actions and statements at this point either insane, or without a shred of objectivity. Using science fiction movies as a defence is now ok? They're purposely making a mockery of the court, and being as sensational and duplitious as possible in order to muddy the waters.
Sounds fair to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
You should recuse yourself as you've shown your ignorance on a number of occasions. Edit: Someone beat me to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story.
You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.
At least if they're biased (and regarding MS they may be) it's out of their beliefs and not because they're paid to be. Not all patent bloggers can say that.