Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Apple v. Samsung Was Explained To the Jury

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the please-don't-laugh-while-the-lawyers-are-speaking dept.

Android 330

jfruh writes "10 jurors have been sworn in for the Apple v. Samsung case, which is at the heart of the ongoing patent disputes over the companies' smartphones. While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law, the jury is at least in theory supposed to be something of a blank slate. Thus, it's interesting to see the detailed instructions Judge Lucy Koh gave to the jury, covering everything from the differences between utility and design patents to how to measure the credibility of witnesses."

cancel ×

330 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here's how it was explained (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836393)

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one first thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Samsung. Samsung is a electronics maker from the country Japan. But Samsung markets in the country America. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would Samsung, a Japanese electronics manufacturer, want to market to the United States, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall phones? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major computer company, and I'm talkin' about Samsung! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Samsung lives in Japan, you must convict!

Re:Here's how it was explained (5, Informative)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836403)

Isn't Samsung from South Korea?

Re:Here's how it was explained (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836467)

That does not make sense!

Judge Lucy Koh (-1, Flamebait)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836485)

Isn't the judge, - Lucy Koh, - the same judge that grant an injunction for Apple, against Samsung ?

As illustrated in Slashdot's report on http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/07/02/0241212/samsung-appeals-apples-injunction-against-galaxy-nexus [slashdot.org]

How fair you think this judge Lucy Koh can conduct herself?
 

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836635)

Afraid the facts might go against your own personal bias by throwing around such silly questions?

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (5, Interesting)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836799)

I don't know what his bias is, but the facts are that she granted an injunction against the sale of Samsung phones on the basis of a few very weak patents. The strongest of which, apparently, was a search function that could search both the local phone and the internet at the same time.

I am not optimistic about this case.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836993)

"weak patents" again with the bias.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836693)

Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?

BIAS!!!

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836781)

Wait, you mean a judge previously issued a legal ruling?

 
Yep, the very same judge Lucy Koh, ruling against Samsung, on the a case which is very very close to this one
 

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (2, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836853)

So what?

Did the facts support the ruling? Or are you just assuming BIAS!!

  "All Things D got a copy of Koh's order, and we just gave it a quick read. Turns out that she granted the injunction due to the strength of the merits of Apple's case and the unlikelihood that Samsung would invalidate Apple's design patent -- the court already held that the 10.1 is "virtually indistinguishable" from the iPad's design and likely infringes Apple's IP. Furthermore, Judge Koh held that, because Apple and Samsung are direct competitors in the tablet space and "design mattered more to customers in making tablet purchases," Apple would be irreparably harmed by further 10.1 sales. Those two factors outweighed any hardship suffered by Samsung, and thus, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was stricken from US shelves."
- http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/26/judge-koh-stops-us-sales-of-galaxy-tab-10-1-puts-a-smack-down-o/ [engadget.com]

Any legal arguments you have against that? Note legal, not made up shit.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837033)

Or are you just assuming BIAS!!

 
Did I say anything about "BIAS"??
 
That "BIAS" word was from YOU, not me
 
All I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh, - the same judge who ruled against Samsung, in a very closely related case, for Apple, presiding over this case, in which Apple and Samsung _are_ the contenders
 
And let me repeat - it's YOU who uttered the word "BIAS", not me
 

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837211)

You didn't use the word bias, but you sure described it. "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" is about as clear as it gets.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837347)

I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh

 
Yes, that is what I said
 
I do not know where you learn your logic from, the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship at all
 
I can be concern of your conduct, or the conduct of a child, but that does not mean I am concerned with your "BIAS" or the child's "BIAS"
 
Or perhaps you should re-take English 101
 

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (0)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837225)

You asked if anyone thought the judge could be fair and implied if not outright said that you thought said judge was biased. Get over it and stop trolling.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837227)

It sounds like your argument is because this judge ruled fairly against Samsung the first time, she is going to come in the 2nd time just assuming they are guilty of whatever. They did it last time, probably guilty this time too! You are calling her personal and professional character into account without any supporting evidence. This is why people are calling you biased. If she had ruled for Samsung would you still have posted this? If no then you are indeed biased. If yes then you are attacking someone with no mention of why. Of course people are going to think you are biased against Apple. Maybe if you told us why she couldn't possibly rule fairly a 2nd time we could argue that instead. Do you think women aren't able to rule fairly? Or do you just think judges are hacks who can't possibly rule based on the evidence of each case separately?

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837193)

I would argue that apple's design patent is invalid.

Here is why, and it has nothing to do with opinion of apple:

A design patent can only be legally issued for "unique, new, and novel" shapes and design motifs.

Apple's idevice designs are none of those. They basically looked at a cheap plastic picture frame, and copied it.

Many consumer products come in this form factor, and have for a very long time. Here are some examples:

Chinese dry erase board, tablet size [oempromo.com]

Wooden round cornered picture frames [cronescust...orking.com]

aluminum picture frame, chinese [made-in-china.com]

For reference, here is what the iPad looks like.

complimentary iPad image [webmasterstuff.com]

The color of the inactive display (black) is not a design feature. It is a feature of how the technology works.

I have seen plastic picture frames that are flat out strikingly like the iPad in aesthetic design in art stores since the late 80s, when plastic really became popular as a choice. If you are showcasing an image, using a picture frame as an aesthetic inspiration is a no-brainer.

Apple should not have been granted this patent.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837219)

They basically looked at a cheap plastic picture frame, and copied it.

And with this, your argument about design patents is over.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837319)

I would grant a design patent to the guy which invented the cantilever chair. Not for this plastic rectangle.

Re:Judge Lucy Koh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837259)

oh it goes a lot further back than that

here's a wax tablet from 100ad

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7j3LiBHJdbE/SwHrho5yX4I/AAAAAAAAAVM/VK8iVp6aOIY/s1600/wax+2.jpg

Re:Here's how it was explained (3, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836497)

Isn't Samsung from South Korea?

Forget it, he's on a roll.

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836593)

So that's how those footprints got on there.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836605)

Isn't Samsung from South Korea?

 
To that clueless group of jurors, I do not think they have enough braincell to understand the difference between South Korea and Japan
 

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836415)

Samsung is Korean, not Japanese. Other than that, well, you've written yet another predictable Chewbacca defense imitation.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837327)

Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor either...

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

bob zee (701656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836419)

I thought the jury was supposed to listen to the arguments from both sides to determine the outcome of the case. Why is this judge explaining anything?

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836479)

Do you know anything at all about how trials work?

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

bob zee (701656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836511)

I guess not. thank you for clearing it up for me.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836607)

Mind=Blown, am I right?

Re:Here's how it was explained (5, Informative)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836493)

Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

bob zee (701656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836529)

ok, thank you. that makes perfect sense.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837185)

If you read the links from TFM, (eg. what is and is not evidence), you'll see that part of a judge's job is to make clear to the jury the rules of the game (especially what specifically needs to be proved to allow them to reach a certain conclusion) before the attorneys slog it out in the ring. In the common law world this is always happens where a jury acts as the tribunal of fact. In fact many appeals turn on the adequacy of a judge's jury instructions. In other words the judge has to be extremely careful and accurate in their instructions to a jury, lest an ambiguous phrase here or there results in a mistrial.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837255)

>There is nothing underhanded going on.

Agreed. Using Hanlon's Razor, Koh is less likely to be a fangirl, and moreso incompetent by supporting such an obvious claim by Apple that other judges would have thrown out without a second thought.

Re:Here's how it was explained (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836679)

Think of it this way - instead of Umpire's at a baseball game calling balls/strikes/outs MLB
decides it would be better for unpartial outsiders to come in and call the game. When they arrive
they don't know the rules - so on coach argues safe and the other coach argues out but you
didn't know what safe or out even meant and what actions lead to them it would be hard for
you to make an informed decision - so before hearing the arguments from opposing coaches
who (since they are opposing) will be syaing the exact opposite of each other, the league has
an expert explain all the rules of the game to you and tells you what information to use when
making your decision (i.e. what you saw/heard, video replay, etc.) and what *not* to consider
(how loud a coach yells, how much spit is drooling don his chin, etc.)

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836837)

Therein lies the problem. To some extant, all definitions are subjective, and in giving this instruction the judge undoubtedly biased toward his own views. It would be better if the jury were already knowledgable about such things.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836985)

No, it's *NOT* a problem. "to some extant" everything is subjective, so the fuck what?
The subjective part is what what the jury is deciding on, the instructions are the rules
they are supposed to use to make the decisions. The judge is not instructing them on
which witness is or is not credible, he is telling them the law and rules about things so
they can make the decision. IF I tell you the a pitch is a strike if it crosses any part of
home plate while being between the knees and shoulders of the batter I am NOT imposing
my views on yopu calling any particular pitch, just what the rulebook says - it is still your
call to decide on each pitch if you think it is a strike or whether it was too high, too low
inside or outside.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836905)

Korean, I think. But IMNSHO it is all utter crap. Lawyers ought not to be parcelling money out to rich people (and funnelling a good deal into their own wheelbarrows), who make the money off ideas that anyone, that you or I would come up with. Stinks to high heaven. Ought to be a law against the laws.

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837039)

Hey! I didn't know Ben Elton had a Slashdot account! Why are you posting anonymously?

Re:Here's how it was explained (-1, Redundant)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837125)

-1, Umpty-umpth Chewbacca defence joke.

Re:Here's how it was explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837173)

Slashdot creates poor-quality ripoff jokes much like Samsung creates ripoff phones.

Can't wait until Samsung raises the Asperger Defense like Hans Reiser.

Re:Here's how it was explained (1)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837245)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an Apple, and this is an Orange. They are both fruit. That does not make sense. Therefore, you must acquit!

Oracle vs Google (5, Insightful)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836397)

I am hopping that Apple gets smacked own as hard as Oracle did in the Oracle vs Google case. A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design. Plus Samsung had many similar prototypes in the works before the iPhone even debuted.

Re:Oracle vs Google (0)

bob zee (701656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836451)

probably not going to happen with this judge telling the jurors how to think.

Re:Oracle vs Google (4, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836601)

I don't see her doing that. She seems to be explaining the boundaries of the case that she and the lawyers have "agreed" to, and what the jury needs to decide on. I didn't notice her telling them how to think.

The fact is the case is so broad and there are so many nits to pick, I'd be surprised if the jury could do anything rational with it.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837241)

probably not going to happen with this judge telling the jurors how to think.

You must have read a different set of instructions than I did, or aren't familiar at all with jury instructions. The judge did no such thing. As much as I'd love to see Apple get smacked down in this silly and wasteful suit, one of the duties of a judge is to give said instructions explaining how the law treats terms used and what they are supposed to be deciding on. Nowhere did it say how they should decide.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836463)

Apple has shown prototypes that predate Samsung's. But, regardless, I agree with you--Apple needs to get smacked down a bit on this one.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

bob zee (701656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836581)

citation needed

Re:Oracle vs Google (3, Interesting)

imamac (1083405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836611)

Re:Oracle vs Google (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837307)

Then you have; https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/12kf2e2BGjn [google.com] that's 2004 I believe (probably filmed earlier than shown on tv of course) Then before that in 2003; https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ [google.com] There's stuff before that? Probably.

Re:Oracle vs Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836757)

For someone who seems rather biased with all your comments, you seem rather clueless too.

Re:Oracle vs Google (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836471)

Agreed. To my mind, this trial should NOT be about whether Samsung "copied" Apple designs. It's about all of Apple's smartphone "design patents" being invalidated and them being sanctioned for misusing the judicial process by applying for frivolous patents. Then they should also pay Samsung's legal fees and a public apology for being dickheads.

Re:Oracle vs Google (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836563)

I think the patent office needs to be smacked down a bit, too. This entire class of patents is ridiculous. You shouldn't able to patent a shape unless that shape advances science and the useful arts. Create a 4th dimensional Hypercube? Fine, that deserves a patent. Create a rectangle made of glass an, metal and plastic? Hell no!

Re:Oracle vs Google (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836733)

Design patents serve a somewhat useful purpose, although I think things like trademark and trade dress serve the purpose better. Just like utility patents, the problem isn't necessarily that they exist, but that USPTO is handing them out like candy. A deliberately minimalistic design with no distinguishing features other than its minimalism shouldn't qualify for a design patent, just as an extremely obvious patent that is just performing an existing operation on a new class of device shouldn't qualify for a utility patent.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836851)

yes, but Rothko got away with calling deliberately minimalist rectangles art. He got famous for it, and maybe even rich.

Re:Oracle vs Google (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836865)

Those appearance patents are only meant to prevent another companies product being sold in the same guise as the patent holder's product. The point of protection being if people were buying the Samsung product in the mistaken belief it was an iPhone. That should be the only thing viewed by the judge. If people are buying the Samsung product based upon preferring the software Android, then that should be the end of it, they are not confusing the offerings, this is clearly a gross abuse of the intent of design patents.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836887)

We already have a thing called "trade dress" to protect distinctiveness.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836567)

I wish I had some mod points to give you.

Re:Oracle vs Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836705)

You are aware that Samsung copied Apple's design, right? If you aren't, I suggest you read a recent story about what Google's opinion was on the matter.

Why? (-1, Flamebait)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836895)

You don't know what you are talking about. Think about this for two seconds: there are plenty of phones and tablets that don't infringe on Apple's design patents, so there are no grounds for invalidating the patents. That's just a ridiculous wet dream you and a million other clueless nerds are having. Samsung was so lazy with their design they didn't even bother to try to come up with something new, and they were probably trying to capitalize on Apple's success by making similar looking devices. It's exactly the kind of thing patents are intended to prevent.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836947)

A time comes for every electronic device where the basic form factor becomes obvious. Let me tell you that I was using pure touchscreen devices with rounded corners long before Apple came out with the iPhone. Apple was the only company dickish enough to patent the designs the industry was already converging on. For that they should be sanctioned.

I mean, even in a world where corporations are generally assholes, Apple managed to outdo the other players in the industry in sheer assholery. That's the only thing they deserve a patent for.

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836977)

Sure you were.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837213)

It's amazing how deep you're encased in Apple's lies to the extent that you can't even believe that there were other similar phones before. Tut tut.

Re:Why? (0)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837121)

@mac.com aye? At least try to hide it from your username...

Re:Oracle vs Google (5, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836585)

"A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design."

I shudder to think what, say, the musical instrument market would look like today if the designs of cellos, violins, classical guitars, grand pianos, and countless other instruments with roughly equivalent shapes were similarly protected.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836667)

well see that is where you show how little you understand. That cello is protect the first 20 years its patented...then after that it is fair game. Just like the iphone/ipad. Im sorry that cellos in 20 years will still be marketable. Same here. In what 15 more years people can copy the design on the iphone. See your problem is you want it treated different because it is a phone instead of a cello...but in legal eyes they are all the same.

My moneys on Apple. They may not win every battle but they will win the war.

And if you dont think its a war.....you sont understand a lot.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836983)

And I think your going to lose that money.. It's too bad, because if you didn't gamble like that, you might be able to afford a Slashdot ID

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836691)

Yeah, because clearly those instruments were all invented within the last 20 years, or even within 20 years of each other.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836841)

Yeah, because clearly those instruments were all invented within the last 20 years, or even within 20 years of each other.

Yeah, because clearly there was only ever one builder of violins, classical guitars, pianos, etc.

You stated the whole point yourself: "patent's didn't exist more than 20 years ago" Yet, still there were countless builder's of violin's, cellos, grand piano's, etc which all look virtually the same.

If apple want's to compete, compete on quality. Don't compete on "rectangularness" or "blackness" cause that's just stupid.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836951)

I did not say anything as stupid as patents didn't exist 20 years ago - they have existed for hundreds of years. However, anything patented more than 20 years ago would not have patent protection any longer, as patents only last 20 years. So if the inventor of the cello patented the shape, 20 years later all of the other makers of cellos (and those other instruments) could have copied it, legally. So the OPs position that "he shudders to think what the modern musical instrument market would look like" is completely stupid - it would look exactly like it does today.

Your statement about "countless builders .. virtually the same even in the absence of patents" is really stupid. Patents aren't used to make sure everyone makes the SAME thing, they are used to ensure people make DIFFERENT things.

Re:Oracle vs Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836805)

Ornamental design patent for a cello.

http://www.patents.com/us-d395912.html [patents.com]

US Patents on the electric violin seem to have started in 1932. And expired a long time ago.
http://www.digitalviolin.com/Patents.html [digitalviolin.com]
http://www.google.com/patents?id=cc1DAAAAEBAJ&hl=en&dq=1861717 [google.com]

Re:Oracle vs Google (5, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836821)

The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric fucktonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.

Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)

Apple ain't making that mistake.

Re:Oracle vs Google (3, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837143)

Just don't copy the shape of the neck-head. That will get you in trouble.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836823)

guitars? [google.com]

Re:Oracle vs Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836597)

It doesn't matter who wins as we lose either way. Patents are the real problem.

At any rate, I will never own a product from either of these two companies every again. They both act like children.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

zaphod777 (1755922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836703)

I don't really see how Samsung had any choice in the matter. Should they wait until Apple stops them from selling any products? Google is the only one that has not really played a large role directly in all of the litigation. I can also say that it is going to get worse before it gets better since the US Patent Office has just given Apple a bunch of absurd software patents for things that Android and other phone manufactures have been using for years.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

thephydes (727739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836669)

Agree. For one, a round cornered rectangle (with a rounded back and a touch screen as well) is exactly the shape of my palm z22 which if I recall correctly was from around 2005. Actually a round cornered rectangle with flat sides is exactly the profile of an old HDD sitting on my desk. Frankly design patents are a crock as are software patents.

Re:Oracle vs Google (4, Informative)

docmordin (2654319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836745)

A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design.

This is an erroneous claim. To see why, it is instructive to see what the US Patent Office has to say about design patents:

"A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:

35 USC 171: Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.

[...]

35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or (c) he has abandoned the invention, or (d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122 (b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 orsection 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

35 USC 103: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. [...]"

In short, the US Patent Office found that Apple's design patents (B. K. Andre, et al., D618,677, Jun. 2007; B. K. Andre, et al., D602,016, Apr. 2008) were sufficiently original to merit acceptance based upon their guidelines, even though they effectively describe articles that are rounded rectangles with touch screens. (The only way that such a design would be invalid, at least according to the US Patent Office, is if a sufficiently similar article was fleshed out in an earlier design patent.)

Re:Oracle vs Google (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836879)

The clear issue that stands out there, is that apple's design is neither new, nor original, and therefor not applicable for patent protection.

As others have pointed out, the combination of "rectangular, thin, with rounded corners and a small bezel border" is not new, and existed in aesthetic designs of personal devices prior to apple's adoption of the aesthetic feature set.

Apple is more claiming that it has taken the old and made it its own, which is now an apple signature appearance-- sure, they can do that, but that falls under trade dress and trade mark, not patent. Similarly to marvel owning red and blue packaging with a spiderweb motif for spiderman products. Making a generic product called "arachnaboy" and packaging it in red and blue blister packs with spiderweb motifs is a trade dress violation. Not a patent violation.

Apple should not have been granted this patent, due to prior art for other personal electronic devices. Claiming "but never a phone or tablet computer!" Does not magically make the aesthetic design novel, nor new.

I hope apple gets their precious little patent used as toilet paper, because in its current form it is completely without value.

Re:Oracle vs Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837351)

>>A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design.
>This is an erroneous claim

I truly hope you don't believe what you're saying. Apple got to where they were by standing on the shoulders of giants - as we ALL do. Being first does not make you the only person who has the right to something so generic as a shape, of which Samsung also appears to have discovered.

After your well thought out and researched response, I would be very disappointed to think you support this patent madness - allowing the obvious and most basic of elements to be patented. The damage to society (not Apple) is incalculable when companies behave irresponsibly and do their best to stifle competition. This is the exact opposite of what patents were created for.

Re:Oracle vs Google (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837065)

I hope so as well, as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to be as lucky as we were in the Oracle case. Judge Alsup really was one of a kind, even going out of his way to school himself on Java in order to better understand the case. Judge Koh doesn't seem particularly enlightened or intelligent, particularly since she already issued an injunction on Apple's patents, which are trivial to say the least.

But let's hope for the best. The case is still going to be decided by a jury, so hopefully they'll make the right decision. Apple's campaign against competition needs to be quashed.

DID YOU KNOW VH-1 WAS THE FIRST TO LOGO 24/7 ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836475)

Yup !! VH-1 started that damned ever-present logo at the bottom right of your screens !!

Re:DID YOU KNOW VH-1 WAS THE FIRST TO LOGO 24/7 ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836523)

I now hate VH-1. Thank you.

Re:DID YOU KNOW VH-1 WAS THE FIRST TO LOGO 24/7 ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836775)

(Score:-1, Informative)

Hahaha! (5, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836533)

While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law...

Hahaha!

Re:Hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836989)

Aren't you the apple-fan who claimed that people can't distinguish Tab from iPad?

Re:Hahaha! (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837063)

I am an owner of both an iPad and a Tab who has described the similarity between the two products, including coworkers thinking I somehow got the Android Home Screen on my iPad.

Fan? No. Somebody that has first-hand experience to bring to this discussion? Yes.

Re:Hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837153)

"It's obvious just from walking down the tablet aisle that Samsung went out of their way to copy the iPad in as much detail as they thought they could get away with.". You don't sound much more qualified than others, and with bias and mind already set.

Re:Hahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837197)

Ouch.

Hey fuckerlords (-1, Offtopic)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836599)

You know, anybody can get the random +5 insightful every 20th post or so on the virtue of nothing more than random statistical chance. The problem is, these fucksticks get high enough karma after a while and end up with 15 mod points every 3 days and bring the rest of the site down. How about karma be awarded only if a percentage of your posts are above a certain moderated threshold? So if every other post hits +3 then you get a point of karma. If you have a long string of 1s then your karma starts to lower some etc. Mod me down if you agree!

Re:Hey fuckerlords (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836659)

Metamoderation already take care of this. I wish I could mod you redundant.

Re:Hey fuckerlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836699)

In your dreams asshole. Metamoderation is a running joke here.

Re:Hey fuckerlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836763)

When you have that many points, it means that you either have to post or moderate, you effectively can't do both as you're awash with mod points. I had hundreds of them going bad since the change. Now I rarely bother to moderate when I have points.

Function based design (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836827)

You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.

Re:Function based design (4, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837043)

You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.

Yet strangely enough no-one actually did all this totally-obvious stuff with a phone before the iPhone was released.

Re:Function based design (2, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837161)

Ever looked at the nokia-line? 3310? 8850? And a zillion other phones just like that?

Re:Function based design (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837167)

LG did.

Re:Function based design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40837229)

form follows function. Similar function means similar form

Which is why a Lamborghini Aventador is visually indistinguishable from a Porsche Cayman ... no wait!

tubgi8l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836831)

EFNet, and 4pply Join GNAA (GAY time wholesome and distributions about who can rant OF AMERICA) is the but it's no7 a Website Third, you argued by Eric

End Apple's patent trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40836923)

The subject title says it all. End Apple's patent trolling. Apple is the new Microsoft. Apple...No innovation, all litigation.

So let me get this straight (1)

philofaqs (668524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837159)

If you have any technical nous at all, read tech sites or news paper reports, you can't be a juror on a case that requires the jury to understand tech stuff, really for this sort of case the law needs changing as it does for fraud cases which last years and the jury really don't have a clue. These tech lawsuits are getting out of hand, I believe judges can declare platiffs to be in contempt of court and bar them from further prosections.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>