Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

Christian Klippel said:
From what i know they already did that. That is, gave out new figures for the damages.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: In the article on Groklaw, that i linked to earlier:



ETA2: Oh, and even there they messed it up. The first amended total was 1,049,343,293. Then they corrected that to 1,049,343,540. However, if you add up the numbers from their breakdown, it comes out as 1,049,423,540.

That's what you get for rushing things out without thinking just to punish someone, i guess.
Click to expand...


I'm going to go ahead and say, if they had a patent examiner* looking over their shoulders, they wouldn't have gotten away with that! Noticing internal contradictions is part of our job :D





*Well, a Canadian one, anyways. :can:
 
But seriously,


Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Click to expand...


That might not be a problem. Note, they said "direct" infringement. That word is important. It's possible to sell things that do not directly infringe a patent, but which indirectly induces someone else to infringe the patent. At least in Canada, such inducement can result in an award of damages.

The famous case is on the patent on Windsurfers. Every element of a windsurfer was known at the time - surf boards, sails, the rail that you held onto, and the universal joint that attached the sail to the board. It was the combination of those known elements into the new, and non-obvious, sail board that received the patent.

The patent holder sued a company that wasn't explicitly selling windsurfers. What they were doing was, selling pre-packaged kits of boards, sails, rails and joints, and then just walking away (presumably whistling) as their customers then combined those known parts into a device which itself was an infringement of the patent.

The courts ruled that there was no reasonable reason anyone would sell such a kit, unless they expected their customers to act to infringe the patent, and as such, the company was "inducing" infringement by their customers, even if the company itself never actually did anything that was directly infringing.

So, this bit might not actually be a problem. We'd have to know the details of the "inducement" to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
The reason for the "inducement" verdict is very simple, based on the nature of the patent claims.

If you take a look at the claims under dispute, they are method claims that recite "involve receiving user input" or detecting touches from a user.

So the claims aren't infringed when the device is sitting on the shelf; they're infringed when a user is interacting with the device. So the verdict considers the user the direct infringer, and the manufacturer the inducer of that infringement.

It's not particularly important; as long as somebody is infringing and it's clearly Samsung's doing, the result is the same.
 
AvalonXQ said:
The reason for the "inducement" verdict is very simple, based on the nature of the patent claims.

If you take a look at the claims under dispute, they are method claims that recite "involve receiving user input" or detecting touches from a user.

So the claims aren't infringed when the device is sitting on the shelf; they're infringed when a user is interacting with the device. So the verdict considers the user the direct infringer, and the manufacturer the inducer of that infringement.

It's not particularly important; as long as somebody is infringing and it's clearly Samsung's doing, the result is the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. Learning a lot here.
 
I don't find this quote mining very persuasive. Just because something was skipped in the beginning because it bogged them down doesn't mean they didn't come back to it. They issued a ruling on the matter so perhaps it became clearer to them after discussing other things.

Not to mention at least one juror stated that infringement was clear from the first day of trial. If the jury was largely in agreement walking into deliberations then perhaps filling out the form didn't take too long.

Finally, in regard to "not needing instruction," I understand that comment was in regard to a specific procedure. It's not as if the jury just walkout in the middle of Koh's entire instruction and said, "You just never mind, little lady. We got this." In fact, I remember reading they spent an entire day doing nothing more than listening to Koh read instructions to the jury.
 
chulbert said:
I don't find this quote mining very persuasive. Just because something was skipped in the beginning because it bogged them down doesn't mean they didn't come back to it. They issued a ruling on the matter so perhaps it became clearer to them after discussing other things.
Click to expand...

Except for the little fact that what they skipped is the question of prior art, right after the foreman was leading them with stories of his own experience as a patent holder.

chulbert said:
Not to mention at least one juror stated that infringement was clear from the first day of trial. If the jury was largely in agreement walking into deliberations then perhaps filling out the form didn't take too long.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you just stated it is OK that a jury makes up their mind on the first day of the trial, instead of considering all the arguments and evidence brought forward during the _whole_ trial?

chulbert said:
Finally, in regard to "not needing instruction," I understand that comment was in regard to a specific procedure. It's not as if the jury just walkout in the middle of Koh's entire instruction and said, "You just never mind, little lady. We got this." In fact, I remember reading they spent an entire day doing nothing more than listening to Koh read instructions to the jury.
Click to expand...

Over 100 pages of instructions. And they all memorize them perfectly after hearing them the first time. Yeah, right ... But then, if one made up his mind right at the first day, who needs instructions anyways. Especially if there is a patent holder as foreman who happily leads the jury based on his own experience, instead of the facts and evidence of the trial itself.

With the result that what they did was intended as punishment, as the foreman said. Guess they should really have spent some time reading those instructions. Because they didn't catch that detail while they were read to them by the judge.

Oh, and how do you explain the huge mistakes they made? And other rather awkward details in their findings?

Greetings,

Chris
 
Christian Klippel said:
Except for the little fact that what they skipped is the question of prior art, right after the foreman was leading them with stories of his own experience as a patent holder.
Click to expand...

You didn't even seem to read what I said. Yes, they said they skipped over something that was bogging them down but you are concluding they never circled back to close the issue. I don't see the basis of that conclusion.

You do realize that you just stated it is OK that a jury makes up their mind on the first day of the trial, instead of considering all the arguments and evidence brought forward during the _whole_ trial?
Click to expand...

I would hope that jurors maintain some degree of openness throughout the proceedings, of course, but I certainly understand strong evidence tipping the scales early on. I don't see how you could imagine the decision process working otherwise.

Over 100 pages of instructions. And they all memorize them perfectly after hearing them the first time. Yeah, right ... But then, if one made up his mind right at the first day, who needs instructions anyways. Especially if there is a patent holder as foreman who happily leads the jury based on his own experience, instead of the facts and evidence of the trial itself.
Click to expand...

This is poor quote mining. The quote about not needing instructions was in regard to fixing a couple math mistakes in the original verdict, not in regard to the whole procedure.

With the result that what they did was intended as punishment, as the foreman said. Guess they should really have spent some time reading those instructions. Because they didn't catch that detail while they were read to them by the judge.
Click to expand...

On this particular point, I agree. As far as I understand, punitive damages should have been excluded from their verdict. However, I have no idea how many juries do it anyways.

Oh, and how do you explain the huge mistakes they made? And other rather awkward details in their findings?
Click to expand...

Aside from considering punishment, I haven't actually seen any mistakes an honest person would consider "huge." A couple math errors over less than 0.01% of the verdict? Out of a 100 pages?
 
chulbert said:
You didn't even seem to read what I said. Yes, they said they skipped over something that was bogging them down but you are concluding they never circled back to close the issue. I don't see the basis of that conclusion.
Click to expand...
I would assume it's based on the fact that that's what they actually said (i believe, as you even mention, the word in question was skipped and the reason why, which you also mention, was because they felt they were bogged down). Question is what you're basing your assumption on?

chulbert said:
I would hope that jurors maintain some degree of openness throughout the proceedings, of course, but I certainly understand strong evidence tipping the scales early on. I don't see how you could imagine the decision process working otherwise.
Click to expand...
The problem here being that prior art would nullify any of those infringements they so clearly claim were violated.
 
Last edited:
chulbert said:
You didn't even seem to read what I said. Yes, they said they skipped over something that was bogging them down but you are concluding they never circled back to close the issue. I don't see the basis of that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I did read what you wrote. However, in the interviews with some of the jurors there is no indication at all that they came back to that issue. From what i have read it's pretty much to the contrary of that. It does read as if they considered prior art initially. The the foreman lead the jurors with tales about his experience with the patents he has. After that they decided to skip the issue and determine that Samsung violated the patents.

chulbert said:
I would hope that jurors maintain some degree of openness throughout the proceedings, of course, but I certainly understand strong evidence tipping the scales early on. I don't see how you could imagine the decision process working otherwise.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I would expect that a jury is completely open to facts and evidence throughout the whole trial. That only after everything is heard the tipping of scales start. Because having the mind made up about something quite from the start usually leads to prejudice.

chulbert said:
This is poor quote mining. The quote about not needing instructions was in regard to fixing a couple math mistakes in the original verdict, not in regard to the whole procedure.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's not just "a couple math mistakes". They contradicted themselves in the verdict. They awarded damages to things they did not find infringing in the first place. Which strongly hints at a hushed process. Which, to me, indicates that they didn't use/followed these instructions the way they should already before the errors were pointed out.

chulbert said:
On this particular point, I agree. As far as I understand, punitive damages should have been excluded from their verdict. However, I have no idea how many juries do it anyways.
Click to expand...

Then what to do about it? It surely shouldn't be left the way it is now, since it goes against what they were instructed to do, or not to do in this case. How much of the sum they arrived is the "to make it painful" part? 30%? 50%?

Then, as it should be damages only, some people noticed something else, as can be read here. I think there are some valid points in that line of reasoning. If certain devices were exclusive to certain carriers, who didn't offer an iPhone at that time or before anyways, how could Apple be damaged by something they had no part in anyways?

Of course it would be interesting to know how many people buy smartphones of either brand without a contract for a carrier, i.e. pay the full price and use it in whatever network they are.

chulbert said:
Aside from considering punishment, I haven't actually seen any mistakes an honest person would consider "huge." A couple math errors over less than 0.01% of the verdict? Out of a 100 pages?
Click to expand...

Well, it is at least curious how they awarded nothing to some devices that are rather close to Apple's "trade dress", while awarding damages for trade dress/design patent issues to devices that are rather far away from that trade dress or design patent. For example as explained here.

Sure, we may nitpick over the details until the cows come home. But at least to me the overall picture of that jury and their verdict isn't a good one, considering what those jurors who spoke out said.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Jaxe said:
I would assume it's based on the fact that that's what they actually said (i believe, as you even mention, the word in question was skipped and the reason why, which you also mention, was because they felt they were bogged down). Question is what you're basing your assumption on?

The problem here being that prior art would nullify any of those infringements they so clearly claim were violated.
Click to expand...

Here is the exact quote from the only article in question:

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
Click to expand...

It seems clear to me that this is a very stream-of-consciousness dump from the juror but this is how interpret the events:

1) Juror was vigorously debating the issue of prior art. In fact, many jurors thought there was prior art.
2) But not all them agreed. They could not resolve the issue and were getting bogged down so they skipped it.
3) The jury foreman, a patent holder, later spoke to them in detail on what was, and wasn't, prior art in specific detail.
4) They were then able to reach a verdict on prior art, which was there wasn't prior art.

It seems clear to me he means, "Oh by the way, we had even skipped that issue at one point because we weren't getting anywhere."
 
Christian Klippel said:
I did read what you wrote. However, in the interviews with some of the jurors there is no indication at all that they came back to that issue. From what i have read it's pretty much to the contrary of that. It does read as if they considered prior art initially. The the foreman lead the jurors with tales about his experience with the patents he has. After that they decided to skip the issue and determine that Samsung violated the patents.
Click to expand...

See my previous post. It seems clear to me that they were stuck and skipped the issue. Then the patent-holding foreman gave them a lesson on prior art and they reached a verdict.

Seriously? I would expect that a jury is completely open to facts and evidence throughout the whole trial. That only after everything is heard the tipping of scales start. Because having the mind made up about something quite from the start usually leads to prejudice.
Click to expand...

Seriously. I can't imagine any human being being completely, literally without opinion until the last word of the closing argument. Do you really think jurors go from "zero to verdict" between the time they stand up and their initial vote as the first order of business?

Sorry, but it's not just "a couple math mistakes". They contradicted themselves in the verdict. They awarded damages to things they did not find infringing in the first place. Which strongly hints at a hushed process. Which, to me, indicates that they didn't use/followed these instructions the way they should already before the errors were pointed out.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were two errors in a 100-page verdict. That covered multiple patents multiplied by dozens of devices. Is anything less than perfection an obvious sign of object carelessness?

Then what to do about it? It surely shouldn't be left the way it is now, since it goes against what they were instructed to do, or not to do in this case. How much of the sum they arrived is the "to make it painful" part? 30%? 50%?
Click to expand...

I don't know; I'm not a legal expert. Do juries routinely award punitive damages even when instructed otherwise? How are those events handled? Do judges just work around it?

Then, as it should be damages only, some people noticed something else, as can be read here. I think there are some valid points in that line of reasoning. If certain devices were exclusive to certain carriers, who didn't offer an iPhone at that time or before anyways, how could Apple be damaged by something they had no part in anyways?

Well, it is at least curious how they awarded nothing to some devices that are rather close to Apple's "trade dress", while awarding damages for trade dress/design patent issues to devices that are rather far away from that trade dress or design patent. For example as explained here.

Sure, we may nitpick over the details until the cows come home. But at least to me the overall picture of that jury and their verdict isn't a good one, considering what those jurors who spoke out said.
Click to expand...

So someone disagrees where they drew the lines of infringement. The fact that they actually drew lines, determining infringement by particular devices but not others, against particular patents but not others, suggests they did consider matters thoughtfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom