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!

Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the sure-patenting-boxes-is-legal dept.

Patents 232

itwbennett (1594911) writes "U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh on Sunday overruled Samsung Electronics' objections to showing jurors a recent instructional video on how patents work, ahead of a trial in a patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The new video, called 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' was developed by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system. Samsung's objection is to several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used (and, by extension, seen as patentable and innovative)."

cancel ×

232 comments

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

Blatant conflict of interest (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46626969)

Apple products in a patent instructional video? In a case involving Samsung? Steve Jobs is smiling somewhere. (As to where he is smiling from, I'll leave up to your imagination.)

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (5, Funny)

SumDog (466607) | about 6 months ago | (#46627031)

He was a Buddhists. So he's smiling from his position as a factory line worker in an iPhone plant.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 6 months ago | (#46627269)

He was a Buddhists. So he's smiling from his position as a factory line worker in an iPhone plant.

I can't believe that got an +5 funny. As insightful a comment I've ever seen.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (2, Informative)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46627395)

That's not insightful at all, unless the factories started employing 2-year old babies.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (1, Funny)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about 6 months ago | (#46627497)

If they can do the work, I'm sure there are plenty of third world factories that would take them.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627821)

Why should an ethereal concept like reincarnation have to adhere to the laws of spacetime?

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627437)

He only died two and a half years ago. So ... is Foxconn employing infant labor now?

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627165)

And... another judge on the payroll... Good times... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627263)

You say that like it's something new lol.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (0)

dimeglio (456244) | about 6 months ago | (#46627671)

Samsung has nothing to worry about. The judge is Korean.

Re:Blatant conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627751)

Apple products in a patent instructional video? In a case involving Samsung? Steve Jobs is smiling somewhere. (As to where he is smiling from, I'll leave up to your imagination.)

And I'll bet Lucy Koh wrote her opinion on a Mac.

Bad law... (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 6 months ago | (#46626971)

How can an "instructional video" showing one of the parties as an example not present a bias?

Re:Bad law... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627013)

easy.... americans are corrupt fuckers

Re:Bad law... (5, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627061)

I like the way you single out North Americans, as if they indeed are somehow more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians. Time for a reality check, dude.

Re:Bad law... (4, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 6 months ago | (#46627085)

In the case of software patents and Copyright idiocy, the USA sure leads the charge.

cf. "Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52,[1] "programs for computers" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents,[2] but this exclusion from patentability only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to a computer program as such.[3] As a result of this partial exclusion, and despite the fact that the EPO subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny [4] when compared to their American counterpart, that does not mean that all inventions including some software are de jure not patentable." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Bad law... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#46627123)

Unless I misremember American law also prohibits patents on software "as such". The question is how amenable to contortions the patent office and patent courts are.

Re:Bad law... (2)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627147)

The AC's comment was not so narrowly confined, was it? He took a specific narrow example of stupidity/greed/corruption and made a homeopathic attempt to generalize it.

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627481)

No - not NORTH americans; just americans.

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627487)

Time for a reality check, dude.

Actually, OP is right and the onus for the reality check is on you.

The US has been exporting a particularly virulent form of institutionalised corruption for some time now, and it's damaging a large proportion of the world's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
http://in.reuters.com/article/... [reuters.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... [abc.net.au]
https://newmatilda.com/2005/03... [newmatilda.com]
etc etc

Re:Bad law... (1)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627605)

Do you honestly believe that makes American sociopaths "more corrupt" than the sociopaths confined inside any other arbitrary national border? It's a matter of OPPORTUNITY, stupid, not a demonstration of a greater degree of corruption than anyone/anywhere else. Do you honestly believe that sociopaths in any other nation, given the same situational opportunity that American sociopaths enjoy now, would refrain from doing exactly what their American brothers are doing now?

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627773)

It's a matter of OPPORTUNITY, stupid,

You're talking theory, I'm talking practice.

It's the practical experience of USA's endemic and intentionally exported corruption the world needs to deal with RIGHT NOW. Not some possible post-US corruption that might happen some time in the future.

. And since you've descended to personal insults, this conversation is over.

Re:Bad law... (1)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627825)

No, I wasn't talking theory. I was talking about what actually happens and has happened. It's just a demonstrable as your "practice". And yes, I called you stupid because you were being stupid, and I explained why in a fashion that should be obvious to anyone with a passing grasp of history and human psychology. The fact that you refuse to be critical enough to recognize it reaffirms that you're being stupid. Stop it and perhaps you'll no longer be stupid.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627555)

Yes, not all North Americans are more corrupt than Europeans or Africans or South Americans or Asians or Australians: Mexicans clearly are not more corrupt than these others, neither Canadians. So who's patent process does that leave?

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627677)

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

Australia is Number 9 in least corrupt countries, the USA is 19.

Reality check done !

Re:Bad law... (0)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627711)

Corruption PERCEPTIONS Index 2013

My god, what a psychological retard you are.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627813)

New Zealand is number 1. Lots of sheep, and apparently, lots of sheeple.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627069)

Not only Americans... just check your neighborhood... or in the mirror.

Re:Bad law... (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627489)

Not only Americans... just check your neighborhood... or in the mirror.

I was with you until "in the mirror". The fact is, most people in most places are not this corrupt. Most people are subject to a minority who happen to "run things".

As a matter of fact, this is part of the problem: the average person working a job and raising a family cannot comprehend the greed, the self-interested several-moves-ahead strategy that looks like things "just worked out that way", the corruption, the ruthlessness, and the dehumanization. If the average person fully understood these forces, then you would in fact have a situation where public awareness keeps these abuses in check.

Adolph Hitler himself described the phenomenon with surprising candor. He said: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

Because they themselves do not use this level of deceit, it does not occur to them that others do. Therefore there is a certain innocence or naivete that prevents the average person from suspecting and guarding against such things.

A gaze into this mirror for most would reflect not such corruption, but a kind of innocence that ideally would know better. History is replete with examples, but of course that only happens elsewhere. It can't happen here. It certainly cannot happen in a manner that is subtle, not publicised, not obvious, not easily detectable. Or so the thinking goes.

The truth is, the corrupt are competing not with a vigilant and wise public, but against other sociopaths. Other sociopaths deal with this not by exposing all corruption, for that would harm themselves, but by carving out their own little niche that doesn't encroach upon the terriority of their competitors more than necessary. The average person has no clue how much they're being lied to on a daily basis by governments, corporations, and other institutions which enjoy an automatic credibility they have not earned.

Re:Bad law... (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627631)

easy.... americans are corrupt fuckers

No. What they are is lazy, childish, obese, opiated by entertainment, naive, and self-centered. This enables the corruption by the minority who really run things.

The rest of the world only thinks Americans are evil and corrupt because of the myth that the US government and US corporations are representing the will of the American people and operating on their behalf.

Most Americans would be shocked and horrified if they learned about what their government and major corporations have done to places like South America, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, let alone what goes on at home.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 months ago | (#46627025)

Is it the actual product that is a part of the suit, or is it merely some other Apple product? Or does Samsung suppose that a jurist should never be given a hint that any of Apple's products, not even one, are innovative? By that analogy, no actual product could ever be shown in such a video.

Re:Bad law... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627041)

many products can be shown that explain it. however it should never be one of the 2 opposing companies products, the risk of bias is simply too high.

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627635)

I love how everyone seems to think that once you sit down in a jury box, you switch your brain completely off.

Do people really think that a douchebag video about patents showing $product from $company cannot be abstracted in one's mind from the evidence they are about to see, or the instructions the jury will receive from the trial judge?

It's ridiculous.

Re:Bad law... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 6 months ago | (#46627679)

I highly doubt *you* could abstract yourself thoroughly enough to avoid any bias (you might attempt to compensate, but most people have no idea how much to compensate *by*). Jurors haven't switched their brains off any more than anybody else (although it might sometimes seem that way, "jury of your peers" does not guarantee them to be in the same intelligence range, for example). Despite this, everything from billboard ads to product placement in movies *does* have a measureable impact on people's opinion of a product. It is typically subconscious, making it hard to explain (and thus compensate for or ignore) why one product just seems "better".

Re:Bad law... (5, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627113)

If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents, in the process of a trial having specifically to do with a patent dispute involving Apple products. Are you really this ignorant of how the (average) human mind actually works and processes stimuli, to think that such portrayal of any same-branded products could not possibly have an adverse effect on how people judge the matter at hand? Samsung's objection is very relevant. Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.

Re:Bad law... (4, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46627779)

If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents

They're not. They show BOTH PCs and Macbooks in the video being used to perform activities related to patents, such as the inventor using the computer to work on the invention / prepare the application, and examiners to review the application.

The video doesn't show a smartphone being used. The only smartphone device I could see appears to be in the background on the table with the laptop the coffee, etc --- it's not being used as an 'example' of a patentable invention.

It is definitely the sort of thing you would see every day.

Re:Bad law... (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46627795)

Another means to educate the jurors - one that does not include any references at all to either litigant's products - should be chosen.

I think the Wright Brothers patent war with Glenn Curtis [ushistoryscene.com] would be a good start, and then this [std.com] ...

Which is why Apple does product placement (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 6 months ago | (#46627819)

Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible? that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs, that's because Apple paid them. If you see a product logo, money changed hands. Otherwise it'll be something generic, or the logo will be removed, or what not. They don't give freebies on that sort of things because they can, and do, make a lot of money on it.

Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.

So why does Apple do this? Because they want to create the image in people's minds that apple are what all the cool, good looking, people (who actors in shows invariably are) use. It is an image thing with the brand. They want people to see it all the time, used by the hero characters. That leads people to form the opinion that they might want to own one.

They wouldn't spend the money doing it if they didn't believe it was effective.

Re:Which is why Apple does product placement (2, Informative)

tyrione (134248) | about 6 months ago | (#46627887)

Product Placement. All my time at Apple we never placed or paid to place a single product. In fact, Hollywood constantly contacts Apple to place Apple products. It costs Apple NOTHING.

Re:Which is why Apple does product placement (1)

macraig (621737) | about 6 months ago | (#46627905)

And as you imply this is precisely why using an "educational" video that includes Apple product placement - however accidental - to instruct jurors in a legal case where Apple is a litigant is just WRONG.

Re:Bad law... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627959)

Especially when not a single Apple product is patentable as everything in every Apple product was stolen from somewhere else.

Re:Bad law... (5, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46627159)

Don't be silly, everyone knows that apple invented the computer, the Internet, the MP3 player, the smartphone, the smart watch and that Steve Jobs figured out how to solve climate change and buried the secret deep within iTunes, if only we could get the damned program to run properly so we could save the world.

Re:Bad law... (-1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46627403)

You should know that iTunes runs perfectly fine on a proper operating system.

Re:Bad law... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627579)

The last time I tried iTunes, it destroyed my entire meticulously named and tagged library of music without even prompting me. I uninstalled it, restored my music from backup and never touched it again.

There are many better music players, so nothing of value was lost.

Re:Bad law... (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about 6 months ago | (#46627581)

If "fine" you mean slow than a Sloth in Winter, then it iTunes runs fine. Unless it got A LOT faster, in the last version, I which I haven't used since I like to run a computer that a little fast than my OLD C64, which is what iTune turns turn it into...

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627429)

You must be joking. Everyone knows that Al Gore invented the Internet. The patent office has his system of tubes on file.

Re:Bad law... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#46627335)

So show widgits and wadgits.

Re:Bad law... (1, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46627761)

The Apple Macbook is shown in the video being used to prepare a patent application, or to display the inventor's design on screen. there is a sack in the background, what looks like a coffee cup you would get from a coffee shop, and a smart phone on the table off to the side, not the subject of the discussion --- it might be an iPhone; i'm not sure... it's not part of the discussion or an example of an invention... it's just in the backgroun environment

Re:Bad law... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 6 months ago | (#46627079)

I agree its incredibly odd. I might stick with examples from over 25 years ago to avoid actual current patents as much as possible.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 6 months ago | (#46627355)

I agree its incredibly odd. I might stick with examples from over 25 years ago to avoid actual current patents as much as possible.

Watch the video linked above. It doesn't use any examples. It simply shows someone using a CAD program on a laptop which happens to be a Macbook.

Re:Bad law... (5, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 6 months ago | (#46627609)

Maybe you should watch it again. Forward the video to 2:54, where it narrates the following quotation:

During the lifetime of the patent, its disclosure may inspire other inventions.

As the quote is read, it shows an Appe II, then a Macbook. Immediately afterwards, it shows an iPad and an iPhone.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627917)

I thought it was a Bloomberg terminal.

Re:Bad law... (3, Interesting)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 6 months ago | (#46627943)

That's just... sheesh. If nothing else, surely this gives Samsung a monstrous reason to... ermm, can you get a mistrial in something like this? One side having evidence introduced through the backdoor so to speak, without chance to offer a rebuttal, or their product? Judge Koy's handling of this continues to stagger a reasonable person. At the end of all this, Samsung surely has a telephone book's worth of evidence to show Judicial Bias against them.

Re:Bad law... (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 6 months ago | (#46627093)

Not only as "an" example, the video featured an Apple II (I think), an Apple MacBook Pro, an Apple iPad, and then an Apple iPhone all in succession during a discussion about how patents lead to inventions which change society. I mean... really?

Re:Bad law... (1, Informative)

cryptoluddite (658517) | about 6 months ago | (#46627307)

These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.

This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627515)

You need to pull out a stopwatch because you don't know how long 5 seconds is.

Re:Bad law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627731)

Uh, no need for a stopwatch. It's a youtube video. It has a progress bar with a timer right at the bottom of the window. The sequence in question goes from 2:55 to 3:03. So it's 8 seconds long. I think the phrases "about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video" and "precisely 8 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video" are pretty much functionally equivalent.

Re:Bad law... (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627527)

These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.

This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.

The problem is that we have two standards. One is the level of objectivity and reasonable thinking you should be able to expect of adult people. The second is the actual thinking you really get from adult people.

According to the first, it's truly a tempest in a teapot. According to the second, the cost of producing a video that would put to rest entirely such objections is negligable compared to the cost of the rest of the trial.

Branding, logos, and emotional situations associated with them are used in marketing for the precise reason that they bypass the former standard and appeal to the second. All major corporations engage in this. Apple is not in any way special and neither is Samsung. They do it because on the vast majority of soft-minded and easily influenced people, they work. Just consider, why would beer commercials show vibrant parties and bikini babes instead of telling you about how the beer was brewed and why it's better? Why do car commercials show families and small children to tug at your heartstrings instead of explaining why their engineering principles are sound? They want the second standard to prevail; it is much more malleable and easier to manipulate by far.

Re:Bad law... (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46627583)

These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo.

So in other words, the jurors could easily assume they are Samsung products. :-)

Re:Bad law... (1)

riskkeyesq (709039) | about 6 months ago | (#46627103)

Samsung before Apple released the iPhone was simply a Blackberry copierthen the iPhone hit: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]

Re:Bad law... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627313)

I had two Samsung touch-screen phones long before the iPhone was released. SGH-i300 and SGH-i330. They ran PalmOS (not WebOS).

Re:Bad law... (-1, Troll)

riskkeyesq (709039) | about 6 months ago | (#46627737)

That's not the test. The test is the blatant copying of the iPhone the moment it was released. Samsung is simply a copycat fast follower. They produce nothing but copies of other people's work. In plastic, without taste, and without quality.

Re:Bad law... (1, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 6 months ago | (#46627163)

I like the way you didn't look at the video before commenting.

Lets see how might the video not be biased. Oh, it has laptops and desktops from various manufacturers, *INCLUDING* Apple.

Gee, some how, that becomes bias?

What an idiot.

Re:Bad law... (-1, Flamebait)

msauve (701917) | about 6 months ago | (#46627253)

Well, obviously if a jury completely lacks any sort of reasoning skills, as you do, there would be no bias.

But, the chances of grouping 12 imbeciles from a random selection is very improbable.

Re:Bad law... (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | about 6 months ago | (#46627511)

But, the chances of grouping 12 imbeciles from a random selection is very improbable.

In this country?

Re:Bad law... (4, Insightful)

rnturn (11092) | about 6 months ago | (#46627215)

If Samsung loses this decision, anyone want to guess what the basis of their appeal will be?

Was it not possible to come up with an instructional video that used fictional companies, inventions, etc. to instruct the viewers? Using Apple products -- or any other well-known vendor's produts -- as examples was not terribly bright.

Re:Bad law... (3, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46627275)

There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.

The only Apple product that is on-screen for any length of time, as well as being the only one with the logo clearly visible, is what appears to be a MacBook Pro being used by the actor portraying an inventor, but in no way was it suggested that the computer itself was the invention. Rather, the invention was some CAD diagram he had on his computer. Even so, the computer does get quite a bit of screen time with the shining Apple logo clearly visible.

Re:Bad law... (1)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627563)

There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.

This sounds so much like the product placements in movies, or the subliminal advertising experiments conducted decades ago. Whether these methods work or not, the intention is rather clear. Why do judges recuse themselves from trials in which they may have an interest? It is not because we have proof positive that the judge cannot maintain objectivity, but rather because in a fair trial we wish to eliminate such concerns entirely. The outcome and the precedent are simply too important.

Whatever you think of such methods, all of this could be neatly put to rest, at the satisfaction of both litigants, by merely creating a video using fictitious brands to illustrate the same point. Compared to the cost of carrying out this trial, it would be negligible, and that's assuming it would have to be created from scratch, that there are not already such videos available.

Re:Bad law... (4, Interesting)

quantaman (517394) | about 6 months ago | (#46627659)

There's a quick video montage of inventions starting at the 2:55 mark which features an old polycarbonate MacBook (or a late-model iBook?), an iPad, and an iPhone, but the logos are not visible on any of them. To be perfectly honest, despite having owned an iPad and that model of iPhone, I didn't even recognize them as being Apple products until I re-watched the video, just because of the angles they were shot at and the actions the scenes were focusing on. Had I not been looking for them, I wouldn't have seen them.

The only Apple product that is on-screen for any length of time, as well as being the only one with the logo clearly visible, is what appears to be a MacBook Pro being used by the actor portraying an inventor, but in no way was it suggested that the computer itself was the invention. Rather, the invention was some CAD diagram he had on his computer. Even so, the computer does get quite a bit of screen time with the shining Apple logo clearly visible.

The phone and tablet shown in the video aren't particularly identifiable on their own, but shown immediately after an Apple laptop a viewer would automatically assume them to be an iPhone and iPad.

The trial is about whether Samsung violated Apple's patents on phones and tablets. The video leaves the impression that not only are Apple's patents valid, but they're such amazing examples of patents that the Federal Justice Center chose them out of countless possible inventions as examples.

I'm not sure you can get much more prejudicial than "you need to decide whether Apple's iPhone and iPad patents are valid, to understand the issue here's a video made by the courts that gives examples of good patents... like Apple's iPhone and iPad patents".

There was an earlier version of the video [youtube.com] that Samsung wanted them to use. I honestly don't understand the decision.

Re:Bad law... (5, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 6 months ago | (#46627331)

I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).

I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.

Re:Bad law... (1)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627575)

I can see what they're complaining about. I skimmed through the video, and the Apple logo was clearly shown on Apple devices. I didn't notice other brands shown anywhere. They should have been a little better about covering up all references to specific devices (i.e., the logos).

I could see the implied "Apple is ok, they're even in our instructional video". So ... someone has to go edit, and then they have to go find themselves a new jury who's never heard of Apple or Samsung. I'm surprised they found enough for the jury to start with.

Indeed. The court showing an Apple logo (or if they ever showed a Samsung label) for even a moment is a potential problem. The effect of a large, official establishment of some sort showing acceptance of such things, for even a moment, is not to be underestimated. It's the entire basis of all celebrity endorsements, for example.

"This major actor used Product X and says he likes it, therefore maybe I will like it too!" sounds silly and full of fallacies. But it works. There is no reason to assume that "this official government organization displayed one logo and not the other" has zero effect. It's so easy to avoid these problems and it would be worthwhile even if it were difficult.

Instant. Appeal. (3, Insightful)

Outtascope (972222) | about 6 months ago | (#46627001)

Un. Fu. King. Believable.

Why??? (5, Insightful)

JakartaDean (834076) | about 6 months ago | (#46627005)

Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:

Samsung’s objection to Apple’s proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, “The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,” and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders.

The article apparently originally appeared on Recode.net [recode.net] so better to use primary source (which has the ruling and both videos.

Re:Why??? (1)

msauve (701917) | about 6 months ago | (#46627053)

OTOH, maybe it helps Samsung by providing an obvious legal error as a basis for appeal.

Re:Why??? (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46627495)

Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:

Because a neutral video cant be used to influence the jury.

Judge Koh's handling of the previous Apple V Samsung case was extremely biased and she got away with it. Why would there be any need to be fair now?

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627029)

Why did a second instructional video have to be made?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627157)

Why did a second instructional video have to be made?

To get to the other side ... Oh wait. Wrong joke, sorry.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

gargleblast (683147) | about 6 months ago | (#46627227)

Why did a second instructional video have to be made?

Because the first one, "Fucking patents - how do they work?" was thought to be in contempt.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627287)

Apple offered to create it so why not accept their kind efforts?

Sounds Reasonable (1)

dmomo (256005) | about 6 months ago | (#46627063)

That sounds like a reasonable objection to showing the video. The article doesn't mention why the judge overruled that objection. I'd be interested to know. With a very large amount of money on the line, would it really be too much trouble and expense to create a less biased version of the video?

Re:Sounds Reasonable (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 6 months ago | (#46627135)

Its worse than that. Another version of the video already exits, and the judge knows it.

Queue the Samsung apologists (-1, Flamebait)

riskkeyesq (709039) | about 6 months ago | (#46627065)

The video coincidentally happens to feature Apple. Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple. The fact is, the slavish copying of other people's products is Samsung's business model. Refrigerators, televisions, phones, any appliance that can be replicated will be.

Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627125)

The video coincidentally happens to feature Apple. Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple.

You obviously don't understand. The past behavior of the judge is not what is at issue
here.

The video will be seen by any competent attorney who works for Samsung as a means by
which the jurors could be influenced to reach a conclusion which is favorable to one of the two
litigating parties. As such, all the time and money which is being spent on these proceedings will
be wasted.

It is comical that the judge is so stupid. I wonder if she got her position because she is a female
and a member of a minority. Because she certainly did not get her position by being competent.

.

Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627153)

It is comical that the judge is so stupid. I wonder if she got her position because she is a female
and a member of a minority. Because she certainly did not get her position by being competent.

She is supporting Apple, an American company based in Northern California, just like an American judge in Northern California should.

Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (4, Funny)

Chuck Messenger (320443) | about 6 months ago | (#46627137)

Nothing in this judge's history indicates any bias IN FAVOR of Apple.

Now it does...

Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 6 months ago | (#46627193)

The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires). Copying with greater efficiency benefits the consumer. You seem to imply that copying is bad, in and of itself. Do you only use Bayer aspirin? Do you avoid iPhones and iPads because they don't use Intel microprocessors?

Getting a patent is supposed to require coming up with something new and non-obvious - something many of Apple's patent claims lack. (e.g. pinch/spread to compress/zoom).

There's also the issue of Apple's apparent copying of a Samsung design [blogspot.com] when they created the iPad, which they disingenuously tried to claim in reverse.

Re:Queue the Samsung apologists (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 6 months ago | (#46627431)

The whole purpose of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions so they can be copied (after the patent term expires).

..which is why patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. It was perverted later.

The judge is clueless. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627067)

But then most judges are when they deal with technology.

Much worse than this, Apple is choosing to litigate rather than innovate.

If Apple did a better job with its products they wouldn't need to worry
about Samsung. I'm an Apple user and I have been disgusted with the
recent versions of OS X and iOS. The stuff is just awful compared to
earlier versions. I don't know what Tim Cook or any of the rest of the
honchos are doing at Apple, but making sure the product is actually
good is clearly not among their top priorities.

.

Re:The judge is clueless. (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 6 months ago | (#46627201)

Well this is a court house only a few miles from Apple's HQ, go figure.

Please implode already? (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#46627143)

I'm seriously tired of this crap. I no longer care who wins or loses in any of this. The patent system is simply being abused in every which way. Software patents have got to go as do design patents as petty as rounded corners. This idiocy has got to end at some point. I honestly expected it to come to a head before now. This is like walking in mud from New York to California.

Re:Please implode already? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46627167)

There is a plaintiff in this case. If you think the system is being abused they'd be the target of your animosity. Not that Samsung is innocent of abusing the system, but there are very few out there as outright hostile as Apple when it comes to these things.

Re:Please implode already? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46627661)

The patent system is what you chose to focus on?

What about the judicial system and the way juries work. The whole thing is a giant sham much larger than patents.

Is there any law against competent jurors? (4, Interesting)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#46627243)

I'm not convinced someone who doesn't know what a patent is BEFORE being selected is
the best person to decide a case like this. Why can't we have scientists in the jury when
it's scientific, medical professionals when it's medical in nature, computer experts when
it is computer related, etc... I think it's unrealistic to pick someone who doesn't know what
a patent/modem/etc.. is and expect them to make an accurate decision when they don't
understand the technology or process involved.

Re:Is there any law against competent jurors? (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46627393)

I can see arguments for both sides.

We're all aware of some of the asinine judgments that jurors and judges have passed down when they don't understand the technology or science at play.

On the other side, however, only allowing doctors to serve as jurors for doctors or engineers to be jurors for engineers can get into some dangerous territory quickly. For instance, what's to stop them from looking out for their own? Doctors could get sued for malpractice and never be found to be at fault. Engineers could be sued for cutting corners and then get off the hook because "it's simply too complicated for a normal person to understand". Having a jury of your peers that includes laypeople ensures that such things aren't possible. Having a random sampling also helps to ensure everyone is treated more equally, otherwise some people will be playing under a different set of rules than the others.

That said, having laypeople is fundamentally at odds with the patent system, which specifies the idea of non-obviousness in terms of whether or not it's obvious to one "skilled in the art", i.e. someone with domain knowledge. A layperson isn't really qualified to judge non-obviousness without first receiving sufficient instruction to become skilled in the art, which simply isn't feasible. As such, it seems like it may make sense to bring in professionals for such cases.

One result I can pretty much guarantee for you is that if they do start bringing in professionals instead of laypeople to deal with these cases, the patent system will get overhauled in short order, simply because the professionals won't want to be getting dragged into court constantly to serve as jurors a disproportionate amount of the time compared to a typical person. Any changes that need to happen to get things fixed will suddenly happen when you start inconveniencing everyone in the field.

Re:Is there any law against competent jurors? (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 6 months ago | (#46627573)

Part of the problem is that people who are familiar with "x" will tend to sympathize with others of their kind. Look at the problem we have holding any member of the criminal justice system - from street cops all the way to judges - liable for even the most egregious illegal acts. It's crazy.

Juries should be a mix of experts and non-experts alike, with the experts providing needed information for the others. There's no perfect way around it, but the current method of "throw out all jurors with an IQ over 75" is obviously subpar.

Has it started yet? (0)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46627261)

I think this was posted after 0:00 UMT

Samsung's objection is absurd (-1)

dogbox (657658) | about 6 months ago | (#46627301)

I know I'm going to look foolish for saying this, but I actually watched part of the video (enough to know how apple products are portrayed)! The apple product in the video is being used to file for a patent. There is _nothing_ in the video about patents owned by apple, or patents involving apple products. The suggestion by Samsung that the video biases jurors is absurd.

Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (1)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#46627529)

On the other hand, there is already another edition of the video that neither party objects to. Surely just to avoid even the perception of impropriety that version could have been used.

Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (1)

kmahan (80459) | about 6 months ago | (#46627549)

Do you think Apple would have an issue if Samsung hired the same actors and reshot only the scenes that used apple hardware and used Samsung hardware instead?

Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 6 months ago | (#46627603)

I know I'm going to look foolish for saying this, but I actually watched part of the video (enough to know how apple products are portrayed)! The apple product in the video is being used to file for a patent. There is _nothing_ in the video about patents owned by apple, or patents involving apple products. The suggestion by Samsung that the video biases jurors is absurd.

Yes, just like the Pepsi Cola in the action movie is merely being used by the badass hero to quench his thirst, and certainly no claim is being made that it is superior to Coca-Cola or any niche brand of soft drink.

Yet Pepsi Cola paid a lot of money to make that happen.

Why should Apple get this treatment for free with government support? When it would be so easy to create a video with none of these questions? That's the take-away here.

Re:Samsung's objection is absurd (2)

MacTO (1161105) | about 6 months ago | (#46627675)

While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.

(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?