Samsung calls on computer scientists to refute Apple patent claims
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
And who the hell are others to question a granted patent? Shouldn't they take that up with the US patent office?
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.
I hope I'm wrong.
Apple's current legal team has all the savvy of its current marketing team.
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.
Apple's rebuttal comes after Samsung's defense rests. I think you mean cross-examination.
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/
You could always choose to ignore it if it upsets you.
Where were you last week when Apple was introducing evidence? Whatever cross examination that occurred wasn't covered either.
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.
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.
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.
I love these so called experts, I like this one
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.
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.
You mean like what Apple did 2 weeks ago?
And all of Apple's witnesses provided their analysis for free?
More pseudo-sarcasm? A little slow this morning, I can't tell. Coffee!
Because they presented their evidence last week and aren’t allowed to cross-examine Samsung until they rest.