The fact that this video is necessary shows that this trial should not be decided by a jury. If you have to explain the very basics of the law to the jury at the start, how can you expect them to judge the nuances of the law that will be argued in the case? These disputes should be judged by those who are experts in the field, i.e. a jury of patent clerks.
Actually, that is the whole point of trial by jury. The basics of the law are explained to "your peers", and then they decide as a group whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. It goes right to the very core of our judicial system.
The basics of the law are explained to “your peers”…
That’s just the thing. Did anyone on the jury redefine the word ‘smartphone’? Did anyone on the jury wholesale steal hardware, software, and packaging designs? Then how could they possibly be Apple or Samsung’s peers?
Actually, that is the whole point of trial by jury. The basics of the law are explained to "your peers", and then they decide as a group whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. It goes right to the very core of our judicial system.
Unless those in the jury are people who are among those who develop smart phone technologies or who are patent lawyers, they are not peers in this system.
I find one scene with the inventor and patent attorney at 5:13 to be quite funny. The inventor is using a sleek, modern Macbook, while the attorney is using some big, clunky "laptop" that looks like something from the early 2000's.
That is a perfect example of what Apple has brought to the pathetic wasteland that everyone else (including Samsung) has been doing for literally decades. Selling crap.
Samsung is just whining as usual. There are other machines being used too. I hope the judge sees through the fake tears and slams the gavel down on Samsung. Crybabies.
So, Back before Sammy started making phones and laptops what did they use? Web TV hooked up to their TV's? C'mon, Send their asses back to Korea so they can watch their neighbor fire off more missiles.....Go Home and stfu.
Unless those in the jury are people who are among those who develop smart phone technologies or who are patent lawyers, they are not peers in this system.
There won't be any experts. Samsung will use their picks to remove them when it's time to whittle the jury down to the final 10. They might again try and leave a "Hogan" in the jury so they can later try and get the verdict thrown out by pretending they didn't know something about them.
If you or I stole we would have to go to prison and pay a fine for illegal earnings Samsung will get a fine when They lose doesn't seem fair I say lock them up. I remember phones before the iPhone . Steve jobs in his keynote when describing smartphones was spot-on I must watch it 6 times never got bored of it !!
Seems like a perfectly valid complaint to me. Imagine if the same video were used in a patent dispute between Dell and another company, or Apple and some patent troll firm. It's already been mentioned that this introduces an unnecessary and easily-avoided source of objection.
All the products shown in the video could be made generic. There's no need to have so many shots of device casings, when the information could be conveyed just as effectively using shots of just the information on the screen or maybe paper instead.
Companies pay huge monies for product placement in movies and TV shows because it will affect what people are likely to buy. It seems like a complete no-brainer that a video designed for use in the courtroom should take every step to avoid introducing bias.
So, Back before Sammy started making phones and laptops what did they use? Web TV hooked up to their TV's? C'mon, Send their asses back to Korea so they can watch their neighbor fire off more missiles.....Go Home and stfu.
Haha, the best way to end this copycat is for that missile to thermonuclear Samsung's headquarter
The fact that this video is necessary shows that this trial should not be decided by a jury. If you have to explain the very basics of the law to the jury at the start, how can you expect them to judge the nuances of the law that will be argued in the case? These disputes should be judged by those who are experts in the field, i.e. a jury of patent clerks.
I tend to agree. This demonstrates a need for a "Supreme Court" of patent law cases, or at the bare minimum, a jury of engineers and patent professionals.
The use of the branded laptops has nothing to do with the content of the video. There was also a Starbucks cup there which apparently is the reason for all inventions. The iPad is obvious only in the presence of the home button, and the iPhone is not very obvious (side shot) but for looking at the rounded back and metal trim. It is too bad there was no obvious Samsung products, but then it is hard to include one of everything in the minute or so of stock footage. Might also give them the hint they should work on their branding? Btw, there was no Koreans in the video either.
Unless those in the jury are people who are among those who develop smart phone technologies or who are patent lawyers, they are not peers in this system.
So, you're saying that in order for a jurist to sit on a murder/rapist/bank robbery trial.... each member of the jury should be a murderer/rapist/bank robber ? Sounds abut right. /s
I know some folks will think that this is over the top but I rather side with Samsung. Not so much with the whole notion that the video is validating Apple's patents but just a general notion that no brand name or logo from any company should be shown. There are plenty of fake products out there in prop houses with fake OS that could have and perhaps should have been used.
Comments
The fact that this video is necessary shows that this trial should not be decided by a jury. If you have to explain the very basics of the law to the jury at the start, how can you expect them to judge the nuances of the law that will be argued in the case? These disputes should be judged by those who are experts in the field, i.e. a jury of patent clerks.
Actually, that is the whole point of trial by jury. The basics of the law are explained to "your peers", and then they decide as a group whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. It goes right to the very core of our judicial system.
The basics of the law are explained to “your peers”…
That’s just the thing. Did anyone on the jury redefine the word ‘smartphone’? Did anyone on the jury wholesale steal hardware, software, and packaging designs? Then how could they possibly be Apple or Samsung’s peers?
Actually, that is the whole point of trial by jury. The basics of the law are explained to "your peers", and then they decide as a group whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. It goes right to the very core of our judicial system.
Unless those in the jury are people who are among those who develop smart phone technologies or who are patent lawyers, they are not peers in this system.
I find one scene with the inventor and patent attorney at 5:13 to be quite funny. The inventor is using a sleek, modern Macbook, while the attorney is using some big, clunky "laptop" that looks like something from the early 2000's.
That is a perfect example of what Apple has brought to the pathetic wasteland that everyone else (including Samsung) has been doing for literally decades. Selling crap.
Samsung is just whining as usual. There are other machines being used too. I hope the judge sees through the fake tears and slams the gavel down on Samsung. Crybabies.
Just pay up Sampson
All the products shown in the video could be made generic. There's no need to have so many shots of device casings, when the information could be conveyed just as effectively using shots of just the information on the screen or maybe paper instead.
Companies pay huge monies for product placement in movies and TV shows because it will affect what people are likely to buy. It seems like a complete no-brainer that a video designed for use in the courtroom should take every step to avoid introducing bias.
Are those stock photos from the 80s?
Sure looks like the 70's or early 80's. The hair, clothes and glasses look like the 1970's actually.
I tend to agree. This demonstrates a need for a "Supreme Court" of patent law cases, or at the bare minimum, a jury of engineers and patent professionals.
Btw, there was no Koreans in the video either.
Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
You were saying…
http://gigaom.com/2014/03/27/new-samsung-connected-led-bulbs-can-brighten-your-smart-home/
Unless those in the jury are people who are among those who develop smart phone technologies or who are patent lawyers, they are not peers in this system.
So, you're saying that in order for a jurist to sit on a murder/rapist/bank robbery trial.... each member of the jury should be a murderer/rapist/bank robber ? Sounds abut right. /s
Ba-zing! Nice burn.
But wait, there's a Samsung monitor at the 3 min 48 sec. mark.
thats' the problem samsung never thought apple product were patentable and so they innocently ripped them off.
the whole point is that branded companies get to protect there patents.