Here is a good picture, the green area is all the things the specific PhD does not know and in case of Apple unless that PhD and what apple is doing are in their specific area of study, it is only their opinion. I also highly doubt that Apple allowed them to see the source code.
" 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."
So this is what it has come to? Paying someone obsene amounts of money to claim a patent is "invalid", even if it has already been awarded? I would say whatever the **** anyone wants me to say for that amount of cash- as would anyone. But which is it Samsung? Are you NOT infringing on patents, or do you simply not recognize the legitimacy of patents in general? Because they keep flipping between the two.
"WELL WE DIDNT STEAL- BUT HEY, EVEN IF WE DID ITS NOT THAT VALUABLE ANYWAY SO THERE!"
What a pathetic company. The only reason they exist in the mobile space is the obsene amounts of money they throw around, as evidence by this "witness" who just got a million dollars richer. Their goal is to confuse the **** out of the jury, and they seem to be doing a good job.
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.
Either way works for Samsung: either a patent is invalid or Samsung used a method that circumvents the patent. Both approaches are being used by the defense.
I believe in a civil trial such as this, when it comes to the question of "Did Samsung infringe or didn't it?", the jury needs only to decide whether it's more likely than not--i.e., whether it's even infinitesimally more likely than a 50/50 chance or not. This is not a criminal case in which it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. (If infringement is determined, then the question of damages must be answered). With patents in hand, Apple has the stronger position, but the jury might still believe in some cases Samsung/Google implemented workarounds. To me, this seems the most dangerous aspect to Apple, because a jury might come to this conclusion on its own without having to invalidate an impartial patent examiner's prior findings.
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too? How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?
So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too? How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?
The jury is tasked with weighing all of the evidence, including the compensation of expert witnesses.
"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.
The thing is, Koh has already granted summary judgement to Apple in this patent, I think - my understanding is that it won't even be presented to the jury. I'm not quite sure why Samsung is wasting time on this, other than they've already paid big bucks to this expert to dispute what the judge has already decided.
Quote:
"The patent the judge determined was infringed so clearly that there was no need to have the jury evaluate Samsung's denial of infringement"
"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.
Maybe RadarTheKat can offer his usual illuminating explanation on how these software patent claims are interpreted. If I have a patent on a software system that uses an interface to perform some function, would others be infringing the patent if they use a similar interface but improve the underlying function?
[quote\] 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. [/quote] I like the fact so many people are obsessing about the compensation amount and totally missing the second part that's stating this is a not an extrordinary amount. Expert witnesses don't come cheap and in the UK they come with the added problem is that they are free to present their own opinions regardless if they go against the side that has paid for them. I don't know the US legal system well enough to know if that's the case over in that system.
The thing is, Koh has already granted summary judgement to Apple in this patent, I think - my understanding is that it won't even be presented to the jury. I'm not quite sure why Samsung is wasting time on this, other than they've already paid big bucks to this expert to dispute what the judge has already decided.
Not exactly accurate. What Koh already ruled on is that Samsung does infringe that particular patent. . . IF the patent is held to be valid. That's testimony the jury is hearing arguments on and something yet to be determined in this trial.
EDIT: From the third paragraph of your link:
"... it (Apple) now holds an infringement finding in its hand and merely has to defend the validity of the autocomplete patent at the spring trial."
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peoples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.
I asked these people if all software was free, how would they pay their bills and I get the blank look and no good answers.
I am working with a software company right now and we did an open source audit on their product and you would not believe how much code was from open source as well as actually software which does require license, but they use the free version verse the commercial versions of the product. Needless to say upper management had no clue their engineers were pulling code from the internet or it was part of libraries the program brought with them from their college work or worse from other companies they worked out and implementing it into new product.
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office..
You can't eliminate most software patents and still sell software??
Google gives away Doc's and Apple throws in their office solutions for free with new hardware, yet Microsoft still manages to sell Office. There's no shortage of paid mobile apps either despite very good free ones. Monetization of your innovations doesn't require a patent and I'd guess most developers don't even bother with them. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates began very successful careers and companies with nary a single software patent to their names.
I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peorples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.
Aren't software engineers discouraged from "reinventing the wheel"? Even if they manage to rediscover an algorithm by themselves, their own implementations would likely be bug-ridden and inefficient compared to what would be available in libraries. The whole purpose of libraries is to reduce the amount of code programmers have to write by providing pre-fabricated solutions to various programming problems. If you hired a programmer to build some custom software for your business, would you be happy if he spent his time rolling his own quicksort routine instead of just using, say, the STL sorting routines? Would you give him a raise for hacking his own buggy implementation of arbitrary-precision arithmetic (and make no mistake, it will be buggy) instead of using off-the-shelf and highly tuned implementations like the Gnu Multiprecision Library?
Software is rather like mathematics in the sense that you don't get points for solving previously solved problems. You won't impress anyone if you reinvent how to compute the area under a curve, as some biologist once did (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper). Results exist to be used by others; otherwise no one would care about them. All those algorithms and data structures in CLRS or any other algorithms book are there so that programmers don't have to rediscover the solutions to various problems.
Aren't software engineers discouraged from "reinventing the wheel"? Even if they manage to rediscover an algorithm by themselves, their own implementations would likely be bug-ridden and inefficient compared to what would be available in libraries. The whole purpose of libraries is to reduce the amount of code programmers have to write by providing pre-fabricated solutions to various programming problems. If you hired a programmer to build some custom software for your business, would you be happy if he spent his time rolling his own quicksort routine instead of just using, say, the STL sorting routines? Would you give him a raise for hacking his own buggy implementation of arbitrary-precision arithmetic (and make no mistake, it will be buggy) instead of using off-the-shelf and highly tuned implementations like the Gnu Multiprecision Library?
Software is rather like mathematics in the sense that you don't get points for solving previously solved problems. You won't impress anyone if you reinvent how to compute the area under a curve, as some biologist once did (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper). Results exist to be used by others; otherwise no one would care about them. All those algorithms and data structures in CLRS or any other algorithms book are there so that programmers don't have to rediscover the solutions to various problems.
No you do not use software libraries you bring with you from a university or another company you worked for or found on the internet. You use the libraries which the company you work for owns. In today market you definitely do not use open source libraries since you do not know what restrictions exist on those library for the free use of them. Today they are libraries which required you to freely license back any changes or improvement you make to the code you got from open source. If the code a developer used in a company product has one of these stipulation than the companies entire product can be required as part of the open source from the period forward and it may bare the company from patenting their product or even making money of that product.
This all comes down to IP ownership and control, imaging if Apple engineer use opensource libraries which had requirements to freely license back any improvement Apple made, Apple whole products could be free to use by Google. Yes I know Apple uses Opensource code, but they have people who know the who IP ownership issue watch over what is use. Also Apple was criticized for taking form the opensource communities and not giving back the improvements which they were not required to. Apple only gave back things which would help them move their solution forward, but did not give back what made their products unique.
This is not about reinventing the wheel, it is about not using someone else's wheel which could cause you IP issue down the road.
Comments
Here is something to keep in mind when you call SME and PhD to testify about what they know.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
Here is a good picture, the green area is all the things the specific PhD does not know and in case of Apple unless that PhD and what apple is doing are in their specific area of study, it is only their opinion. I also highly doubt that Apple allowed them to see the source code.
What a crock of horse-shit.
" 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."
So this is what it has come to? Paying someone obsene amounts of money to claim a patent is "invalid", even if it has already been awarded? I would say whatever the **** anyone wants me to say for that amount of cash- as would anyone. But which is it Samsung? Are you NOT infringing on patents, or do you simply not recognize the legitimacy of patents in general? Because they keep flipping between the two.
"WELL WE DIDNT STEAL- BUT HEY, EVEN IF WE DID ITS NOT THAT VALUABLE ANYWAY SO THERE!"
What a pathetic company. The only reason they exist in the mobile space is the obsene amounts of money they throw around, as evidence by this "witness" who just got a million dollars richer. Their goal is to confuse the **** out of the jury, and they seem to be doing a good job.
What a ridiculous defense!
Martin Rinard is a complete ass-tool to suggest the patent examiners didn't know about or understand the fundamentals of WAIS. MIT should fire him.
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.
What a ridiculous defense!
If a patent is invalid it can't be infringed on.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
So Samsung's defense isn't that they DIDN'T infringe Apple's patented technology, but that they DID infringe Apple's IP, and they want Apple's valid patents to be considered invalid so that they can continue infringing.
Either way works for Samsung: either a patent is invalid or Samsung used a method that circumvents the patent. Both approaches are being used by the defense.
I believe in a civil trial such as this, when it comes to the question of "Did Samsung infringe or didn't it?", the jury needs only to decide whether it's more likely than not--i.e., whether it's even infinitesimally more likely than a 50/50 chance or not. This is not a criminal case in which it must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. (If infringement is determined, then the question of damages must be answered). With patents in hand, Apple has the stronger position, but the jury might still believe in some cases Samsung/Google implemented workarounds. To me, this seems the most dangerous aspect to Apple, because a jury might come to this conclusion on its own without having to invalidate an impartial patent examiner's prior findings.
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too? How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?
So should the jury not pay attention to the "credentials" of Apple's expert witnesses too? How do you expect the jury to interpret facts on concepts they have no knowledge about?
The jury is tasked with weighing all of the evidence, including the compensation of expert witnesses.
"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.
The thing is, Koh has already granted summary judgement to Apple in this patent, I think - my understanding is that it won't even be presented to the jury. I'm not quite sure why Samsung is wasting time on this, other than they've already paid big bucks to this expert to dispute what the judge has already decided.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html
"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.
But don't the keyboards in dispute predict the next word rather than merely correcting an already typed word? See for example (http://lifehacker.com/5926314/upgrade-your-40-android-to-jelly-beans-predictive-text-keyboard). If so, why are they being litigated under a patent for "autocorrect", which talks about providing a "suggested replacement for the current character string"? (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8,074,172.PN.&OS=pn/8,074,172&RS=PN/8,074,172) Are the devices considered to be infringing just because of the visual aspects?
Maybe RadarTheKat can offer his usual illuminating explanation on how these software patent claims are interpreted. If I have a patent on a software system that uses an interface to perform some function, would others be infringing the patent if they use a similar interface but improve the underlying function?
[/quote]
I like the fact so many people are obsessing about the compensation amount and totally missing the second part that's stating this is a not an extrordinary amount.
Expert witnesses don't come cheap and in the UK they come with the added problem is that they are free to present their own opinions regardless if they go against the side that has paid for them. I don't know the US legal system well enough to know if that's the case over in that system.
Not exactly accurate. What Koh already ruled on is that Samsung does infringe that particular patent. . . IF the patent is held to be valid. That's testimony the jury is hearing arguments on and something yet to be determined in this trial.
EDIT: From the third paragraph of your link:
"... it (Apple) now holds an infringement finding in its hand and merely has to defend the validity of the autocomplete patent at the spring trial."
I've been a software engineer for years and I know and have worked with many others in my field.
I think software should receive additional protection through patents. Others I know are 100% against software patents. I also think software should be monetized - if you create a new algorithm you should get compensated. Others I know think software should all be open and free and you should never have to pay for something like Office.
Most engineers I know think the way I do. However, there are enough in the other camp that can make a lot of noise and make people think engineers are equally divided. In my experience this isn't the case.
So the jury should pay no attention to the "credentials" of these expert witnesses and therefore believe what they say. They need to look at the facts. I'm expecting Apple to point this out in closing arguments. Just because Samsung found a few engineers to support their position in know way means that ALL engineers think this way.
I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peoples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.
I asked these people if all software was free, how would they pay their bills and I get the blank look and no good answers.
I am working with a software company right now and we did an open source audit on their product and you would not believe how much code was from open source as well as actually software which does require license, but they use the free version verse the commercial versions of the product. Needless to say upper management had no clue their engineers were pulling code from the internet or it was part of libraries the program brought with them from their college work or worse from other companies they worked out and implementing it into new product.
You can't eliminate most software patents and still sell software??
Google gives away Doc's and Apple throws in their office solutions for free with new hardware, yet Microsoft still manages to sell Office. There's no shortage of paid mobile apps either despite very good free ones. Monetization of your innovations doesn't require a patent and I'd guess most developers don't even bother with them. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates began very successful careers and companies with nary a single software patent to their names.
I know this is generally statement, but I know more in the bold text crowed than not. This is the problem with Software Type (i will not say engineer since some are programmer not true engineers) they either live in an Utopian world and think everything should be free to everyone. Or they are lazy bunch and rather steal (use) other peorples code verse actually thinking up the idea themselves, figure out how to do it, and then write 10, 000 lines of code to make it work.
Aren't software engineers discouraged from "reinventing the wheel"? Even if they manage to rediscover an algorithm by themselves, their own implementations would likely be bug-ridden and inefficient compared to what would be available in libraries. The whole purpose of libraries is to reduce the amount of code programmers have to write by providing pre-fabricated solutions to various programming problems. If you hired a programmer to build some custom software for your business, would you be happy if he spent his time rolling his own quicksort routine instead of just using, say, the STL sorting routines? Would you give him a raise for hacking his own buggy implementation of arbitrary-precision arithmetic (and make no mistake, it will be buggy) instead of using off-the-shelf and highly tuned implementations like the Gnu Multiprecision Library?
Software is rather like mathematics in the sense that you don't get points for solving previously solved problems. You won't impress anyone if you reinvent how to compute the area under a curve, as some biologist once did (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper). Results exist to be used by others; otherwise no one would care about them. All those algorithms and data structures in CLRS or any other algorithms book are there so that programmers don't have to rediscover the solutions to various problems.
Apple's current legal team has all the savvy of its current marketing team.
Is that sarcasm as in the ads that air once and get pulled?
Aren't software engineers discouraged from "reinventing the wheel"? Even if they manage to rediscover an algorithm by themselves, their own implementations would likely be bug-ridden and inefficient compared to what would be available in libraries. The whole purpose of libraries is to reduce the amount of code programmers have to write by providing pre-fabricated solutions to various programming problems. If you hired a programmer to build some custom software for your business, would you be happy if he spent his time rolling his own quicksort routine instead of just using, say, the STL sorting routines? Would you give him a raise for hacking his own buggy implementation of arbitrary-precision arithmetic (and make no mistake, it will be buggy) instead of using off-the-shelf and highly tuned implementations like the Gnu Multiprecision Library?
Software is rather like mathematics in the sense that you don't get points for solving previously solved problems. You won't impress anyone if you reinvent how to compute the area under a curve, as some biologist once did (http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper). Results exist to be used by others; otherwise no one would care about them. All those algorithms and data structures in CLRS or any other algorithms book are there so that programmers don't have to rediscover the solutions to various problems.
No you do not use software libraries you bring with you from a university or another company you worked for or found on the internet. You use the libraries which the company you work for owns. In today market you definitely do not use open source libraries since you do not know what restrictions exist on those library for the free use of them. Today they are libraries which required you to freely license back any changes or improvement you make to the code you got from open source. If the code a developer used in a company product has one of these stipulation than the companies entire product can be required as part of the open source from the period forward and it may bare the company from patenting their product or even making money of that product.
This all comes down to IP ownership and control, imaging if Apple engineer use opensource libraries which had requirements to freely license back any improvement Apple made, Apple whole products could be free to use by Google. Yes I know Apple uses Opensource code, but they have people who know the who IP ownership issue watch over what is use. Also Apple was criticized for taking form the opensource communities and not giving back the improvements which they were not required to. Apple only gave back things which would help them move their solution forward, but did not give back what made their products unique.
This is not about reinventing the wheel, it is about not using someone else's wheel which could cause you IP issue down the road.