Samsung calls on computer scientists to refute Apple patent claims

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2014
In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial on Tuesday, Samsung continued its defense against by calling on a cavalcade of computer science experts who testified that Apple's patents were not novel, should not have been granted or did not apply to alleged infringing products.

Apple vs Samsung


Samsung's day in court was filled with highly technical testimony as counsel used the time to bolster a defense that Apple's five patents-in-suit are not colorably different from prior art, irrelevant and not worth the $2.19 billion in damages the company is seeking.

According to in-court reports from the San Jose Mercury News, Samsung called on MIT computer science professor Martin Rinard and founder of the Internet Archive Brewster Kahle to argue against Apple software like "slide-to-unlock" and universal search. The publication noted Rinard was compensated $800,000 for time spent analyzing the subject -- not out of the ordinary for an expert witness in a high-profile tech case.

A separate report from CNET said Rinard offered testimony on Apple's '959 patent for universal search functions.

"What I'm saying is the patent office didn't have the information in front of it to make the right decision [when it granted Apple the patent]," Rinard said.

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, computer science professor Kevin Jeffay took on Apple's '647 property covering "data detectors." As described in court, the patent uses a server-based system to identify data points in digital documents. For example, phone numbers and dates are detected and parsed out in a "clickable" interface that sends the user to another app for further processing.

Jeffay said Samsung's implementation of a similar feature accomplishes much the same thing, but since the process runs completely in-app he found no infringement of Apple's patent.

Like past witnesses, the professor mentioned Google and its Android Jelly Bean operating system, which runs on a number of Samsung products accused of infringement. Samsung's counsel has taken to using Google and its OS as a shield, deflecting Apple's advances by saying accused features are part of Android.

Samsung Amethyst 2010 iPhone copy doc


Arguing against Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was Saul Greenberg, a professor of human computer interaction at the University of Calgary in Canada. According to CNET, Greenberg said swiping gestures are common in many device UIs. It is unclear if he detailed the origin or history of the gesture, which some believe to have been popularized by Apple's iPhone.

Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed.

Looking forward, presiding Judge Lucy Koh noted jury deliberations may start earlier than planned as both parties are ahead of schedule. Out of the 25 hours granted to each side, Apple has used 15 hours and 38 minutes, while Samsung used 17 hours and 39 minutes. If proceedings continue at this pace, the court is looking to counsel to wrap testimony on Apr. 25 and offer closing arguments on Apr. 28.

The Apple v. Samsung trial will pick up on Friday with Apple finishing its cross examination of Wigdor.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,435member
    $800,000?

    And who the hell are others to question a granted patent? Shouldn't they take that up with the US patent office?
  • Reply 2 of 43
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(
  • Reply 3 of 43
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,105member
    For $800,000 I'd also do my best to come up with a way to bash an existing patent with similar spurious dribble that they've come up with.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    No need to defend if they don't copy to begin with...these idiots got paid to lie, they didn't work for Samscum and did the coding nor copying...just an opinion...brush them off...next
  • Reply 5 of 43
    "Samsung's final witness for the day was Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor from the University of Toronto. Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed."

    Predictive text ? "autocorrect" and this witness knows it. Yet he said something technically true, yet unrelated, in an effort to persuade the, likely, not as technically savvy jury.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    frac wrote: »
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.

    Apple's current legal team has all the savvy of its current marketing team.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,933moderator
    philboogie wrote: »
    $800,000?

    And who the hell are others to question a granted patent? Shouldn't they take that up with the US patent office?

    Have no fear. Apple will certainly address that point in its rebuttal. A separate trial is what is needed to challenge the validity of a patent. In this trial the jury must consider each patent to be valid.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,933moderator
    frac wrote: »
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.

    Apple's rebuttal comes after Samsung's defense rests. I think you mean cross-examination.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,817member
    Have no fear. Apple will certainly address that point in its rebuttal. A separate trial is what is needed to challenge the validity of a patent. In this trial the jury must consider each patent to be valid.

    Where did you read the jury must accept Apple's patent claims as valid and beyond challenge in this trial? That's incorrect as I understand it. The trial can result in a finding in invalidity on one or more of Apple's patent claims so their counsel absolutely needs to step up to the plate and defend them.

    Which of course they are.
    http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/16/string.of.samsung.witnesses.find.that.apples.patents.are.all.invalid/
  • Reply 11 of 43
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    tastowe wrote: »
    I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

    You could always choose to ignore it if it upsets you.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    frac wrote: »
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.

    Where were you last week when Apple was introducing evidence? Whatever cross examination that occurred wasn't covered either.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    frac wrote: »
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.

    Apple's rebuttal comes after Samsung's defense rests. I think you mean cross-examination.

    You're right, I do mean that. Nevertheless, we seem to have gone from noting every raised eyebrow, to a paucity of daily detail. I hope this doesn't pressage a verdict brought about by lack of effort on Apple's behalf or boredom by a jaded jury.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,581member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Where did you read the jury must accept Apple's patent claims as valid and beyond challenge in this trial? That's incorrect as I understand it. The trial can result in a finding in invalidity on one or more of Apple's patent claims so their counsel absolutely needs to step up to the plate and defend them.

    Which of course they are.
    http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/16/string.of.samsung.witnesses.find.that.apples.patents.are.all.invalid/

    Your Electronista link is the only one I've seen that adequately fills out details the shoddy mainstream press has completely ignored. "Reporters" like Howard Mintz have almost entirely focused on what the Samsung and Google hired witnesses have pocketed while superficially detailing the substance of their testimony.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    frac wrote: »
    Is it just me that thinks Apple's legal team just seems to be going through the motions rather than enthusiastically tearing apart Samsung's evidence? I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.
    I hope I'm wrong.

    Where were you last week when Apple was introducing evidence? Whatever cross examination that occurred wasn't covered either.

    Something useful I hope. :smokey:
    No, I do remember that and also more detail of Samsung's cross examination of Apple's witnesses - the reverse, reference the article above, not so much.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,422member

    I love these so called experts, I like this one

     

    Quote:

    Wigdor offered testimony on Apple's '172 patent covering predictive text entry by saying a number of other tech firms developed "autocorrect" features before the patent was filed.


     

    Autocorrect is what MS does after you miss spell a word, but you have to type out the entire word first. On the other hand predictive text, means as you starting to type out a word it giving various choice to choose from so you do not have to type it out completely or depending on the word it guesses exactly the word you were about to write.

     

    two different concepts...

     

    Then there is this one.

     

    Quote:

    Arguing against Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was Saul Greenberg, a professor of human computer interaction at the University of Calgary in Canada. According to CNET, Greenberg said swiping gestures are common in many device UIs. It is unclear if he detailed the origin or history of the gesture,


     

    Can anyone name a swiping gestures which is common prior to 2007, and I an not talking about a latch on a door which you have to physically move that is not a swipe. I curious what prior artwork they are referencing

     

    Also, keep in mind that Samsung and others all attempted to have the USPO to invalid these patents and failed.

     

    Lastly, and again I am not 100% sure on this one, it does not matter if Google put the feature into the product, it was Samsung who place the product on the market and sold it and made money of it. It is not unusually for a company who uses and sells an infringing product to be sues as well as the inventor. Just because Apple is not suing Google does not mean that can not go after Samsung for it use. Actually winning against Samsung would make it easier to go after Google and make them pay for all infringer including Google's Motorola business.

  • Reply 17 of 43
    Meh. undefined
  • Reply 18 of 43
    mistercowmistercow Posts: 157member
    tastowe wrote: »
    I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

    You mean like what Apple did 2 weeks ago?
    saarek wrote: »
    For $800,000 I'd also do my best to come up with a way to bash an existing patent with similar spurious dribble that they've come up with.

    And all of Apple's witnesses provided their analysis for free?
  • Reply 19 of 43
    tastowe wrote: »
    I wish the samsung's employees just shut up their mouth about their work. I am getting sick tried hearing about their stupid samsung galaxy phones on my birthday month. What dumb ass Samsung did schedule the court on my birthday of April month. I am very upset iPhone lover:(

    More pseudo-sarcasm? A little slow this morning, I can't tell. Coffee!
  • Reply 20 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Frac View Post

    I've searched for Apple's rebuttal arguments but it doesn't seem to be being reported at all.

     

    Because they presented their evidence last week and aren’t allowed to cross-examine Samsung until they rest.

Sign In or Register to comment.