These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.
Unbelievable. These questions are absurd. By reading the jury instructions they should know that the evidence presented is what they have to work with. My jaw dropped reading these. What does Jobs' directive have anything to do with this case? Are these jurors really buying into the argument that Google is the proper defendant, not Samsung?
Question 2: I would think they were chosen based on the fact that they are the patents Apple believes Samsung infringed and are the most important. It seems like the jury is trying to figure out if Apple execs made notice of the infringing patents, or was it the lawyers who told the Apple execs that their patents are being infringed. The question almost implies that if Apple's mgmt team didn't notice the infringement, why should the jurors consider it so obvious. You could also imply by one of the questions that a juror is thinking "Apple decided on a holy war, then filed suit without stating what their patent infringement claims were in the suit." That thought process is hard to believe. Thoughts?
Question 3: the implication here may be that a juror believes that Samsung may have purchased the patents they claim were infringed solely as a way to retaliate with a counterclaim. Samsung needed something, and they purchased the patents, knowing there was a possibility of infringement on the purchased patents, so Samsung could say "hey, Apple copies too. How can you fault us when Apple is implementing similar copy-cat patents in their devices." Thoughts?
Questionu 4: looks awfully good for Apple. Implication here; Apple told Samsung they were infringing and Samsung ignored them. Also, it looks absolutely horrible that NONE of the big brass at Samsung showed up at trial.
Question 5: looks like a straw-vote is coming. Or, each juror could be filling in damage amounts. They'll add 'em up and divide by 8. probably just for the stated purpose though.
Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....
Do you think these are valid questions? Did you read the jury instructions? Most jurors know you can't ask for more evidence when they receive the case.
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.
Exactly my thoughts on that question. Jurors are looking for an answer to what Samsung's response was when they received the infringement notice from Apple. They can't be too happy about the unavailability of Samsung's mgmt at trial.
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?
The Judge doesn't talk to the jurors after they enter the jury room. The entirety of the communications consist of those 5 notes passed back and forth.
The questions make it seems like someone have heard the phrase regarding Jobs "nuclear war" against Google/Android.. Although he said it at his deathbed to the author of his biography, and not at the point when they initiated the lawsuits.
Glad Koh shut it down, and I think it will be hard for that one juror to convince the rest of the jury about this. Apple will rightfully win. Heres hoping Samsung has to pay dearly for stealing patents.
Question 3 is interesting. It could mean a juror is thinking " Samsung's attorneys recommend they go out and spend a few million on a couple patents that Apple may be infringing , file a counterclaim for what amounts to peanuts relative to the amount Apple is asking for. Samsung, by doing this, is trying to persuade us that patents aren't worth $2billion dollars, but just a few million." Jurors don't like being toyed with.
I knew about two ex apple employees (Andy Rubin and Eric Schmidt) are troublemakers. The google did hired two ex apple employees troublemakers.
Google "hired" Rubin in 2005...13 years after he worked at Apple.
Schmidt was already part of Google in 2006 when he was asked onto Apple's board....hell I think he was their CEO.
Google "hired" one ex-Apple employee (and probably more before and after that)...Apple has had executives on Google's board too, including 2 at the same time Schmidt was (may have the times wrong here)
There doesn't have to be super spy stuff going on for Google to be wrong...but spitting out this super spy theory immediately destroys any credibility your statements may have. It is barely supported circumstantially and it seems to me like you are just spitting out what others have spit at you enough times for you to believe it is true.
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.
The actual claim in an Apple/HTC lawsuit was that he worked at Apple answering to the same department heads who worked on the "Real-time API" patent. Apple never went so far as to claim Rubin personally worked on it or any other features that would eventually become part of iOS 14 years or more later. His time at Apple was relatively short and a long time ago.
Career
Carl Zeiss AG, robotics engineer, 1986–1989.
Apple Inc., manufacturing engineer, 1989–1992.
General Magic, engineer, 1992–1995. An Apple spin-off where he participated in developing Magic Cap, an operating system and interface for hand-held mobile devices.
MSN TV, engineer, 1995–1999. When Magic Cap failed, Rubin joined Artemis Research, founded by Steve Perlman, which became WebTV and was eventually acquired by Microsoft.
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Android Inc., co-founder 2003–2005.
Google, 2005–present. Senior Vice President in charge of Android for most of his tenure. Since December 2013, managing the robotics division of Google (which includes companies bought by Google, such as Boston Dynamics).
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Where everything was held in the cloud, which sometimes went down, with disastrous consequences for people's data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
Amazingly, they might actually be trying for justice.
I am sure that someone will set them straight pretty soon. The American Justice system doesn't bother with justice anymore.
The one question proves the jury must have fallen asleep, They are asking how the 5 patent were chosen, simple the judge order Apple to pear down their claim, Steve Jobs had no input on that he has had already passed. Apple originally want to sue on a larger number of patents and the Judge wanted nothing to do with it. It is called pile it high and deep, Apple did not want to limit their case to just one patent they want to use them all since one single patent may not be a buying decision factor, but the combine features in question could be the difference in a buyers decision and this is Apple's whole case.
I also read elsewhere, where someone did a much better analysis of court case than AI, Apple is fact spent significant time on the fact that Google was no on trail, since it was solely Samsung's decisions to ship products with Android and the features which were infringing. The point was that Samsung had chooses and knew prior to shipping those product they infringe on Apples IP. This is the point I was making in the past, Google did not forces any manufacturer to use Android, and the fact that Google was Indemnifying them has no baring on this case since it was Samsung decision to use Android which put the liability on them.
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.
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
I don't see what his state of mind or thinking has to do with it. In fact, it makes zero difference. Samsung clearly infringed (is that even in question at this point?) and now it's a question of how much they have to pay.
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?
You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.
It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.
Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.
I don't see what his state of mind or thinking has to do with it. In fact, it makes zero difference. Samsung clearly infringed (is that even in question at this point?) and now it's a question of how much they have to pay.
Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).
Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?
Question 2: I would think they were chosen based on the fact that they are the patents Apple believes Samsung infringed and are the most important.
Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?
Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?
Can't be legal?? :???: I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.
Comments
Unbelievable. These questions are absurd. By reading the jury instructions they should know that the evidence presented is what they have to work with. My jaw dropped reading these. What does Jobs' directive have anything to do with this case? Are these jurors really buying into the argument that Google is the proper defendant, not Samsung?
Question 2: I would think they were chosen based on the fact that they are the patents Apple believes Samsung infringed and are the most important. It seems like the jury is trying to figure out if Apple execs made notice of the infringing patents, or was it the lawyers who told the Apple execs that their patents are being infringed. The question almost implies that if Apple's mgmt team didn't notice the infringement, why should the jurors consider it so obvious. You could also imply by one of the questions that a juror is thinking "Apple decided on a holy war, then filed suit without stating what their patent infringement claims were in the suit." That thought process is hard to believe. Thoughts?
Question 3: the implication here may be that a juror believes that Samsung may have purchased the patents they claim were infringed solely as a way to retaliate with a counterclaim. Samsung needed something, and they purchased the patents, knowing there was a possibility of infringement on the purchased patents, so Samsung could say "hey, Apple copies too. How can you fault us when Apple is implementing similar copy-cat patents in their devices." Thoughts?
Questionu 4: looks awfully good for Apple. Implication here; Apple told Samsung they were infringing and Samsung ignored them. Also, it looks absolutely horrible that NONE of the big brass at Samsung showed up at trial.
Question 5: looks like a straw-vote is coming. Or, each juror could be filling in damage amounts. They'll add 'em up and divide by 8.
Do you think these are valid questions? Did you read the jury instructions? Most jurors know you can't ask for more evidence when they receive the case.
Exactly my thoughts on that question. Jurors are looking for an answer to what Samsung's response was when they received the infringement notice from Apple. They can't be too happy about the unavailability of Samsung's mgmt at trial.
The Judge doesn't talk to the jurors after they enter the jury room. The entirety of the communications consist of those 5 notes passed back and forth.
Glad Koh shut it down, and I think it will be hard for that one juror to convince the rest of the jury about this. Apple will rightfully win. Heres hoping Samsung has to pay dearly for stealing patents.
If so, and google is going to take the hit, maybe google stockholders might want to know?
I knew about two ex apple employees (Andy Rubin and Eric Schmidt) are troublemakers. The google did hired two ex apple employees troublemakers.
Google "hired" Rubin in 2005...13 years after he worked at Apple.
Schmidt was already part of Google in 2006 when he was asked onto Apple's board....hell I think he was their CEO.
Google "hired" one ex-Apple employee (and probably more before and after that)...Apple has had executives on Google's board too, including 2 at the same time Schmidt was (may have the times wrong here)
There doesn't have to be super spy stuff going on for Google to be wrong...but spitting out this super spy theory immediately destroys any credibility your statements may have. It is barely supported circumstantially and it seems to me like you are just spitting out what others have spit at you enough times for you to believe it is true.
The actual claim in an Apple/HTC lawsuit was that he worked at Apple answering to the same department heads who worked on the "Real-time API" patent. Apple never went so far as to claim Rubin personally worked on it or any other features that would eventually become part of iOS 14 years or more later. His time at Apple was relatively short and a long time ago.
Career
Carl Zeiss AG, robotics engineer, 1986–1989.
Apple Inc., manufacturing engineer, 1989–1992.
General Magic, engineer, 1992–1995. An Apple spin-off where he participated in developing Magic Cap, an operating system and interface for hand-held mobile devices.
MSN TV, engineer, 1995–1999. When Magic Cap failed, Rubin joined Artemis Research, founded by Steve Perlman, which became WebTV and was eventually acquired by Microsoft.
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Android Inc., co-founder 2003–2005.
Google, 2005–present. Senior Vice President in charge of Android for most of his tenure. Since December 2013, managing the robotics division of Google (which includes companies bought by Google, such as Boston Dynamics).
Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?
Amazingly, they might actually be trying for justice.
I am sure that someone will set them straight pretty soon. The American Justice system doesn't bother with justice anymore.
Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
Where everything was held in the cloud, which sometimes went down, with disastrous consequences for people's data.
Amazingly, they might actually be trying for justice.
I am sure that someone will set them straight pretty soon. The American Justice system doesn't bother with justice anymore.
Best "justice" money can buy.
Justice is a commodity.
The one question proves the jury must have fallen asleep, They are asking how the 5 patent were chosen, simple the judge order Apple to pear down their claim, Steve Jobs had no input on that he has had already passed. Apple originally want to sue on a larger number of patents and the Judge wanted nothing to do with it. It is called pile it high and deep, Apple did not want to limit their case to just one patent they want to use them all since one single patent may not be a buying decision factor, but the combine features in question could be the difference in a buyers decision and this is Apple's whole case.
I also read elsewhere, where someone did a much better analysis of court case than AI, Apple is fact spent significant time on the fact that Google was no on trail, since it was solely Samsung's decisions to ship products with Android and the features which were infringing. The point was that Samsung had chooses and knew prior to shipping those product they infringe on Apples IP. This is the point I was making in the past, Google did not forces any manufacturer to use Android, and the fact that Google was Indemnifying them has no baring on this case since it was Samsung decision to use Android which put the liability on them.
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.
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
I think the "disaster" you refer to came sometime after Microsoft bought Danger and long after Rubin had moved on.
EDIT: Why yes it was.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173593/tmobile_takes_hit_for_sidekick_fail.html
Is Microsoft's current mobile experience influenced by innovations from Rubin? :rolleyes:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/144662/article.html
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?
You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.
It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.
Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.
I don't see what his state of mind or thinking has to do with it. In fact, it makes zero difference. Samsung clearly infringed (is that even in question at this point?) and now it's a question of how much they have to pay.
Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).
Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?
Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?
Can't be legal?? :???: I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.