Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.
I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)
Cheers
So if you lose a case, attack the jury. You're saying bias = knowing something about patents?
Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
You, sir, are a fool.
So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?
Are we still waiting for round 2?
Man, the trolls get worse every day. I guess all the trolls with any intelligence at all knew that they had to go into hiding after the jury decision, so now we're left with nothing better than RBR.
Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
You, sir, are a fool.
Want to show some reference as what to read. Calm down Sally. Just put a link and cite your source please.
So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?
Are we still waiting for round 2?
In the Bloomberg interview, the foreman stated:
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.
1. The statement doesn't indicate any bias.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.
1) I never said the foreman was biased. You are putting words into my mouth. I was responding to your comment of "tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions?" He clearly substituted his understanding of valid prior art with what was was instructed to him.
2) I completely disagree with this statement. Just because the foreman THINKS he accurately followed instructions doesn't mean he actually did. I'm sure the foreman truly thought he was doing the right thing, but people make mistakes. Unfortunately, in this situation, it appears to be a very egregious one.
3) This was not a trial of a simple guilty or not-guilty charge. This case REQUIRED massive analysis regardless of how one-sided it was.
4) Please substantiate your claim that Groklaw has an "intense hatred of Apple". If you don't like Groklaw's assessment, there are plenty more analyst saying the same thing. http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis. Regarding your "error of law" vs "error of fact" statement, how is a jury not following instuctions from the judge an "error of fact"???
5) Again, how are you missing the fact that the foreman is replacing his understanding of "valid prior art" with what was instructed to the jury?
Why are you citing an article that starts with the self-proclaimed caveat of "I'm a business lawyer, not a patent lawyer."? Both the links I have now provided are from exactly those...patent lawyers....
Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?
"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."
Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?
Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?
"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."
Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?
That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.
There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.
That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.
There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.
Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.
That isn't to say that HAD the jury compared the patent claims to the evidence that they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. They very well may have. However, they did not follow the jury instructions and have left the verdict susceptible to appeal.
Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.
And, once again, you're taking one line out of context and making all sorts of assumptions. The foreman said specifically that they compared every single claim against the judge's instructions for those claims.
In the end, juries have an enormous amount of discretion. It is extremely unlikely that Samsung is going to get a reversal based on the jury's decisions of fact.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Go read for yourself.
RAAAAGGGEEEEE lol
poor little angry troll is angry....
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
LOL is this dude a joke?
Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
You, sir, are a fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.
I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)
Cheers
So if you lose a case, attack the jury. You're saying bias = knowing something about patents?
So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?
Are we still waiting for round 2?
Man, the trolls get worse every day. I guess all the trolls with any intelligence at all knew that they had to go into hiding after the jury decision, so now we're left with nothing better than RBR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
You, sir, are a fool.
Want to show some reference as what to read. Calm down Sally. Just put a link and cite your source please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So does that mean that you're NOT going to tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions? Even after I gave you the foreman's own words where he specifically stated that they DID follow the judge's instructions?
Are we still waiting for round 2?
In the Bloomberg interview, the foreman stated:
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.
If you are interested in reading more, Groklaw has a thorough analysis at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
That is, of course, nonsense for many reasons:
1. The statement doesn't indicate any bias.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.
For a less hysterical discussion, try this:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/835091-apple-s-verdict-will-likely-survive-appeal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That is, of course, nonsense for many reasons:
1. The statement doesn't indicate any bias.
2. The foreman said specifically that they followed the judge's instructions. His direct statement is far more valid than your intentional distortion.
3. Quick verdicts like this are almost always an indication that the facts are so one-sided that the jury has no problem reaching a decision, That may make it even HARDER to overturn than if it had taken longer. If it had taken a month, for example, one could argue that the jurors were exhausted one and juror pressured them to reach a decision to finally get on with their lives. When it only takes 2 days, it means they were pretty much in agreement all along.
4. Groklaw's article is equally full of nonsense - they have an intense hatred of Apple and it has been apparent from the start. Many of their statements are completely unrelated to reality. For example, they keep confusing errors of law (which are appealable) and errors of fact which (usually) are not. In fact, even the example you cite is an example of Groklaw's willingness to let their hatred of Apple overwhelm logic. Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
5. There's STILL nothing there which supports RBR's oft-repeated statement that the foreman set himself up as an expert witness and substituted his expertise for the judge's instructions.
For a less hysterical discussion, try this:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/835091-apple-s-verdict-will-likely-survive-appeal?
1) I never said the foreman was biased. You are putting words into my mouth. I was responding to your comment of "tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions?" He clearly substituted his understanding of valid prior art with what was was instructed to him.
2) I completely disagree with this statement. Just because the foreman THINKS he accurately followed instructions doesn't mean he actually did. I'm sure the foreman truly thought he was doing the right thing, but people make mistakes. Unfortunately, in this situation, it appears to be a very egregious one.
3) This was not a trial of a simple guilty or not-guilty charge. This case REQUIRED massive analysis regardless of how one-sided it was.
4) Please substantiate your claim that Groklaw has an "intense hatred of Apple". If you don't like Groklaw's assessment, there are plenty more analyst saying the same thing. http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis. Regarding your "error of law" vs "error of fact" statement, how is a jury not following instuctions from the judge an "error of fact"???
5) Again, how are you missing the fact that the foreman is replacing his understanding of "valid prior art" with what was instructed to the jury?
Why are you citing an article that starts with the self-proclaimed caveat of "I'm a business lawyer, not a patent lawyer."? Both the links I have now provided are from exactly those...patent lawyers....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Words on a piece of paper are usually NOT valid prior art that would allow one to overturn a patent.
Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?
"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."
Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?
That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.
There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's what happens when you take only a portion of the judge's instructions. She said:
"but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."
And there's absolutely nothing that suggests that Samsung had anything like that. Rather, all they had was a very general description - like the silly 2001 video and the discussion by Fidler - which was so vague as to be useless.
There was no evidence at all from Samsung that they had 'words on paper' which described Apple's invention in detail.
Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.
That isn't to say that HAD the jury compared the patent claims to the evidence that they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. They very well may have. However, they did not follow the jury instructions and have left the verdict susceptible to appeal.
And, once again, you're taking one line out of context and making all sorts of assumptions. The foreman said specifically that they compared every single claim against the judge's instructions for those claims.
In the end, juries have an enormous amount of discretion. It is extremely unlikely that Samsung is going to get a reversal based on the jury's decisions of fact.