Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?
This is why more than 90% of all civil cases in the US never go to trial let alone a jury. A jury is unpredictable and they may not understand the evidence presented. What's going on in the jury room, that is always the billion dollar question.
I, for one, believe that Samsung should be commended on their work during this trial.
The sheer amount of bullshit that they've provided has already been shipped to the Amazon where it will aid in rebuilding heavily deforested areas.
Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt.
They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day.
It sound like Judge Koh is pointing them back to the evidence presented during the trial, but I'm surprised they got away with even asking for "more evidence" that wasn't presented.
The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.
Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt.
They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day.
Agreed, they did a damn good job, the lying rat bastards.
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?
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.
The other thing is, the only high level executives Samsung called were from Google.
Where were the Samsung executives?
Why wouldn't they face the court?
Perhaps the jury are looking for an answer to what the people who run Samsung think about this situation.
The jury clearly seems to have trouble rapping its collective brain around the fact that it's Samsung on trial for infringement. It's Samsung that produced infringing products without a license (and sold them), not Google. The software Google produced does not itself infringe, because the software alone is nothing without hardware on which to run it.
I know it was claimed during the trial that Google had slide to unlock before Apple patented it but no evidence was presented to validate that claim. It is very easy to claim you did something first, proving it is whole different story.
At the time, what mattered for patenting is who invented first--and Apple was likely first. (Since the American Invents Act of 2013, what matters is who filed for the patent first.) Apple likely both invented and filed for the patent before Google (re)invented, but the patent may not have been awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until after Google (re)invented.
Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....
One can be dumb and still make the right decision. But even saying Samsung is guilty is right but the penalty is something else entirely. What if they say Samsung only owes $40 million? I'd say they made the right decision but for the wrong amount… because they are dumb.
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.
The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.
Agreed. It may be a consequence of Samsung throwing everything at the wall, whether it had a chance of sticking or simply dribbled down. The jurors may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and complexity of all the crap and at this stage having difficulty sorting through the junk pile. I have the impression that this will take them awhile. Cross your fingers that there are jurors who have the moxie to help get their deliberations organized. Otherwise this will end up being a lengthy fuster cluck.
The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.
I don't think we can extract that from the given information. We can say the questions they ask were trivial but that doesn't mean that they are only focusing on them. It could simply be one juror that wanted some answers to those questions, but I see nothing that suggests that is what all are hung up on or what they are only focusing on.
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.
If Google had it first, why did they not patent it? I remember when my niece had an iPod touch for Christmas, I said if they made a larger one if these and put some office software in it, it could replace my net book. Does this mean I invented the idea if an iPad - No. And similarly just because some Google employee may have been looking at slide to unlock before Apple patented it does not mean they invented it. The idea of the patent is to protect the right of the person with the patent, not someone who claims they thought about something similar but did nothing about it.
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.
Comments
Duh. Because justice will have been served accurately. That is praiseworthy.
My children will learn cursive. They’ll write in it exclusively, even. This is just disgusting.
The sheer amount of bullshit that they've provided has already been shipped to the Amazon where it will aid in rebuilding heavily deforested areas.
Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?
This is why more than 90% of all civil cases in the US never go to trial let alone a jury. A jury is unpredictable and they may not understand the evidence presented. What's going on in the jury room, that is always the billion dollar question.
I, for one, believe that Samsung should be commended on their work during this trial.
The sheer amount of bullshit that they've provided has already been shipped to the Amazon where it will aid in rebuilding heavily deforested areas.
Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt.
They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day.
It sound like Judge Koh is pointing them back to the evidence presented during the trial, but I'm surprised they got away with even asking for "more evidence" that wasn't presented.
The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.
Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt.
They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day.
Agreed, they did a damn good job, the lying rat bastards.
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?
I think you mean ex Apple board member.
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.
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.
The other thing is, the only high level executives Samsung called were from Google.
Where were the Samsung executives?
Why wouldn't they face the court?
Perhaps the jury are looking for an answer to what the people who run Samsung think about this situation.
...... To say Google had it in house before Apple patented it is meaningless. Apple had it in house before Apple patented it....
LOL
The jury clearly seems to have trouble rapping its collective brain around the fact that it's Samsung on trial for infringement. It's Samsung that produced infringing products without a license (and sold them), not Google. The software Google produced does not itself infringe, because the software alone is nothing without hardware on which to run it.
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.
Samsung doesn't want to throw Google completely under the bus - they just want to run over their big toe.
I know it was claimed during the trial that Google had slide to unlock before Apple patented it but no evidence was presented to validate that claim. It is very easy to claim you did something first, proving it is whole different story.
At the time, what mattered for patenting is who invented first--and Apple was likely first. (Since the American Invents Act of 2013, what matters is who filed for the patent first.) Apple likely both invented and filed for the patent before Google (re)invented, but the patent may not have been awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until after Google (re)invented.
One can be dumb and still make the right decision. But even saying Samsung is guilty is right but the penalty is something else entirely. What if they say Samsung only owes $40 million? I'd say they made the right decision but for the wrong amount… because they are dumb.
That's why I think the questions were fine.
The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.
Agreed. It may be a consequence of Samsung throwing everything at the wall, whether it had a chance of sticking or simply dribbled down. The jurors may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and complexity of all the crap and at this stage having difficulty sorting through the junk pile. I have the impression that this will take them awhile. Cross your fingers that there are jurors who have the moxie to help get their deliberations organized. Otherwise this will end up being a lengthy fuster cluck.
I don't think we can extract that from the given information. We can say the questions they ask were trivial but that doesn't mean that they are only focusing on them. It could simply be one juror that wanted some answers to those questions, but I see nothing that suggests that is what all are hung up on or what they are only focusing on.
If Google had it first, why did they not patent it? I remember when my niece had an iPod touch for Christmas, I said if they made a larger one if these and put some office software in it, it could replace my net book. Does this mean I invented the idea if an iPad - No. And similarly just because some Google employee may have been looking at slide to unlock before Apple patented it does not mean they invented it. The idea of the patent is to protect the right of the person with the patent, not someone who claims they thought about something similar but did nothing about it.
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.
that's stretching it a teensy bit.
You make it sound like he worked at Apple in 2005 or something. He was at Apple from 1989 - 1992...his being at Apple is likely irrelevant.
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.