[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.


Recommended Posts

I don't know how that works exactly but I'd guess you can't just reject every juror you don't like, else both parties would never reach an agreement about the jury members. Maybe there were other candidates that could be more likely to side with Apple.

Actually, yes they can reject a juror for any reason they want and they aren't required to disclose that reason either (well they aren't allowed to exclude jurors based on race or a few other special factors)...

Even for the protected case, like race, it is hard to know if that is the reason the juror was sacked since the attorney doesn't have to give ANY reason whatsoever for dismissing the juror. So, Samsung lawyers could have asked potential jurors if they already had a patent and dumped them for that reason, if they wanted to.

No, they aren't allowed to dump ever juror or, as you said, they would be going in circles forever. The limit is usually like 6 or so (depends on the jurisdiction) that they are allowed to summarily reject using Peremptory Challenges.

That being said, him being on the jury is apart of our system. He was able to bring some insight of the patent system to the table and there were jurors also without that same insight...

Guess this infringes -- right-- based on the check marks then- and this is a slate tablet (also the screen worked without the pen too)

Round corners-- and Grey bezel

img_touch-k_general.jpg

No wait that can't-- be--

This came out about 5 years before the Ipad and about 2 years before the iPhone was even shown to the public. It was demoed middle of the year 2005 and the first production went out in late 2006.

What I find troubling even more-- is that the judge didn't ask to get reassigned.... there in itself is something Samsung should request a mistrial on.

The judge worked on patents for a Law Firm that was employed by Apple and her company filed applied and received same said patents for Apple.

In other words.... she in essence worked (even if not now) for the Prosecution.

That is what I find troubling in the most.....That for me does not even go into the Jury in itself..

That would be like a guy on trial for murder and the judge is related to the prosecuting attorney

if that is true than Samsung must fire it's law firm because that would be utter important. not to mention all the flaws in the jury's verdict.

That being said, him being on the jury is apart of our system. He was able to bring some insight of the patent system to the table and there were jurors also without that same insight...

Or he could have simply lied or not disclosed what his background truly was or what patents he had because he wanted to defend his own patents?

This is just getting better and better

Juror in Apple-Samsung Suit May Have Owned Patent Used by Apple

velvinhogan.jpg

http://www.androidpit.com/what-juror-in-apple-samsung-suit-may-have-owned-patent-used-by-apple

An Interview with the jury foreman has been published, and apparently it gives away how they royally screwed up when deciding if Apple patents were valid.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

Long story short: the foreman thinks that Apple patents aren't invalidated by the prior art because Apple software doesn't run on the platforms were the prior art did.

I'd think that instead of making up stuff he could just have read the jury instruction, which says nothing about anything running anywhere and considers even stuff written on plain paper as prior art.

Long story short: the foreman thinks that Apple patents aren't invalidated by the prior art because Apple software doesn't run on the platforms were the prior art did.

(does this guy really understand the words that were coming out of his mouth) {This is just based on what he has already said}

HUH??? If that is the case then --- (hate to use a Johnny C.) then you must acquit.... because Samsung Does not run on IOS and therefore that makes the verdict they stated invalid.

If that is the case then Samsung did not Copy Apple or go against their patent-- (stay with me here--- this guy really should have just stayed silent--)

The reason by what he said is so is because it runs on Android and not IOS. What he said basically is Apple Patents are only valid on Apple products because they can not run on Android...also what he also does not understand is that some of those prior art have patents as well.

The same can be said true based on what he said about Android then -- it is not the same platform ---. Android does not run on an Iphone.... so it is not the same....

Right>?? This guy is looking for his 15 minutes and it is about up.....and he may be giving just cause for a mistrial and not realize it.

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

So I guess it's just pure coincidence that their tabs look just like their 2006 digital picture frames, and their phones look very similar to 2006 phones?

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

Wrong---actually they copied -- LG--

Prada was shown way before the Iphone was announced and would explain the design change...that Samsung did

4.jpg

but guess what -- this was not allowed to be shown due to the fact that Apple was not Suing LG and LG was not on trial--

LG paper work for the LG KE850 filed with the FCC on May 2006

Which is well before Apple even filed with the FCC in Oct.2006.

On a final note-- though this topic will most likely get sidelined for other news--

Here is a patent from 1993 that just so happened to run out right before Apple Filed theirs...

http://www.google.com/patents/USD337569

One may want to pay close attention to the drawings and -- pre-dated any evidence Apple Presented...

though instead of a cell phone they said an "touch screen notebook"

Note the bezel / round corners - size and dimensions.

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

Yes, really. Many of the patents that Apple have are based on technology and concepts copied from other products. This is what prior art is.

Yes, really. Many of the patents that Apple have are based on technology and concepts copied from other products. This is what prior art is.

There's nothing stopping the owners of the prior art to step up and invalidate Apple's patents. It's their loss if they don't.

Still stealing no matter how you look at it.

That's your opinion. Just because somebody can dig up prior art, doesn't mean the design was stolen.

Anybody can draw a picture, seal it in an postmarked envelope, and store it in a drawer for 100 years. People do it all the time.

If somebody has prior art and doesn't do anything with it, then there's obviously a reason. There's too much money on the line for somebody to not care.

That's your opinion. Just because somebody can dig up prior art, doesn't mean the design was stolen.

Anybody can draw a picture, seal it in an postmarked envelope, and store it in a drawer for 100 years. People do it all the time.

If somebody has prior art and doesn't do anything with it, then there's obviously a reason. There's too much money on the line for somebody to not care.

I am not just talking about this case. Ideas are taken/stolen/borrowed/used...however you want to call it...all the time and even by Apple.

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

so Apple steeled copyed got inspired by a design and that's ok but others can't? even worse, patented that design and got away with that so it could protect their copying inspiration? see the flaw in this? see why so many are angry with this attitude? how, in the world, an organization could patent that stuff, go to court and still manage to win, in-spite so many evidence against it? patent slide to unlock? patent a square with round corners? it's ridiculous.

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I am not a US citizen nor a Trump fan. Respect to both left and right. But I will, for the sake of fun, predict something for my own. There will come a day when the US and China will collide like titans ( over Taiwan or anything else ). Then, on that day, some people in this comment section will realize how good an idea it was to become independent in areas like that. ( Or atleast try )
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen by Usama Jawad Microsoft Edge may not be the most popular browser out there, but it does receive quite frequent updates that sometimes bring surprising new features and axe others that are not as popular. Now, Microsoft has detailed some of the new security enhancements that it has introduced in Edge for Business, typically used by commercial customers. Microsoft has emphasized that security features are baked into Edge for Business and offer native integration with security and governance tools like Defender and Purview. Browser sessions are governed by default on managed devices but can also be governed through dedicated work profiles on unmanaged devices. An important aspect in this area is controlling the use of shadow AI. We have talked about this before, but it essentially restricts employees from using unsanctioned AI apps through data loss prevention (DLP) policies, with Edge redirecting them to trusted AI services like Microsoft 365 Copilot. This feature, available as a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) license, ensures that confidential data never exits AI boundaries set by your organization in Purview. Additionally, Microsoft also has strong DLP policies for contractors. Contractors leveraging a Entra ID-joined work profile provisioned by their contracting company on a device managed by their actual employer can be restricted from downloading files locally. In such scenarios, the file is saved on the contracting firm's OneDrive rather than being downloaded locally. Another useful Edge security feature disallows copying and pasting from unmanaged locations and apps. Similarly, DLP policies can be configured at a granular level to restrict screenshots or downloading of files from certain locations. In the same vein, IT admins can block the installation of extensions, hosted apps, themes and scripts, and control if users can install extensions from external locations. They can also enable the installation of specific extensions and allow users to request access to certain extensions, so that they can be managed on a case-by-case basis. Finally, Edge for Business now has an on-device AI model that uses computer vision to see what's on your screen and block potentially malicious content immediately. This does not rely on site reputation, as it simply monitors what is being displayed on your screen, which means that it is effective against malicious content that takes over your screen and employs scareware tactics. Since this is an on-device AI model, it does use your system's resources, so it's enabled by default only on devices with at least 2GB of RAM and four CPU cores. You can find more details in the Microsoft Mechanics video here.
    • Could you come up with a slightly less depressing background for Tux instead of that gray gradient? Doesn't have to be cheerful, just less of a downer...
    • Linux 7.2's first release candidate gets off to a good start by Paul Hill Credit: Larry Ewing It has been a few weeks since the release of Linux 7.1, and in that time, the Linux 7.2 merge window has been open, where developers can submit their features and patches ready for the upcoming release. That window is now shut, and the release candidate phase has begun so that new features can be tested and further fixes applied. According to the founder of Linux, Linus Torvalds, this week’s release candidate looks “reasonably normal”. Although we are super early in the release candidates, this is a good sign as it makes it more likely that an eighth release candidate will not be needed. Torvalds even mentioned that the update’s stats are only larger than they really are because there was another AMD header drop with a third of the patch just being AMD GPU register definitions, which aren’t big changes but make the code contributed look larger overall. In addition to this, he noted that just over half the patch is drivers, even when excluding the AMD register dump. The rest of the changes are spread out over architecture updates, tooling, documentation, and core kernel updates. In the next week, Torvalds says that he will be chilling out, taking the week “mostly off”. Despite this, he will be reading emails and keeping up with things, so if he is slow responding, now you know why. He said he is hoping for a calm week, but we will just have to see if the second release candidate is actually like that. We should expect seven or eight release candidates before Linux 7.2 is released, so expect it around the end of August. If you missed it a few weeks ago, be sure to check out our coverage of Linux 7.1's release.
    • Ridiculous claim that the labor cost difference of $6000 annually would increase cost per phone by $200. The employees produce 3 phones per month or what?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Zeynel earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      JKR earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dedicated
      Asgardi earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      496
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      248
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      154
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      86
    5. 5
      macoman
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!