

Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict - xd
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052

======
neya
>Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that
the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different
methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older
example and be run without error.

That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The
same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right?

EDIT: The way I see it - He supports Apple simply because he is in the same
shoes as Apple himself. Do you know what patent this guy owns?

It is a 'very innovative patent' just like Apple's 'rounded corners'.

[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953)

Now you see, why he's supporting Apple. Both own BS patents.

Actually, this verdict should have been expected - The court is in the country
of the infringer (Apple), The lawyers are from the same country and the money
is _also_ from the same country. There is no reason as to why people should
support Samsung (Korean) than they should support Apple (in an unfair world).
Apple has easy access to every kind of influence you could think of. This
leads us to several conclusions:

1) One who has more money in this is system called 'democracy' RULES this
system, because they automatically gain all the power they need. Including
support from all legal systems and governments.

2) If you assumed everything happened in a fair platform, without exchange of
money _illegally_ , then your assumptions are plain wrong. Apple has a lot of
money..even more than Samsung, it is easier for Apple to payout the necessary
guys in the legal system and still not leak it outside to anyone, than it is
for Samsung. This is NOT to _confirm_ they bribed someone, but just to let you
know that there is a very high probability of them doing so.

Why do I think so? Think about this fact: Apple has sued numerous competitors
using their BS patents and has won several times. Numerous competitors have
sued Apple and none of them have had a fair victory _yet_. Surely there is
something fishy going on here.

Also to be noted - Apple has more money than any of their competitors.

3) I suspect even Samsung's lawyers could have been manipulated, because they
all seem slightly dumb to me (on purpose?).

In all its entirety, this whole legal system and patent system is just a
clever way for the people involved to make money. Tomorrow, if you plan to
start a phone company, just keep all this in mind; You are as vulnerable as
Samsung is to get sued for BS reasons by such patent trolls (Apple).

A little personal:

I wanted to buy a tablet for my mom, I was seriously considering the iPad 2,
because it still is a really good tablet. After all this BS, I've decided not
to buy any of their products, even though in the end, loss of a single user is
not going to matter to them. But I am pretty sure that there is strength in
numbers. I sincerely plead everyone to boycott Apple and its products, because
if its going to be more than just one user(me), it WILL surely have an impact
on them. Hopefully, they will learn not to repeat all this shitty behavior
again.

A little deeper:

Actually, if you are against Apple for such bad behavior, you have no other
choice, than to boycott them. A few months back, my idea was to create a
better tablet than Apple did and show the world that they aren't the only ones
who can do it and they are over-hyped as hell. I contacted Chinese OEM's,
display guys, etc. But, later I realized, it will be of no use, because I will
be as vulnerable as Samsung was...and I don't even have the money to defend
myself or my tablet startup. Hence the only way to screw Apple right now is to
stop buying their products.

Thanks for reading.

~~~
crash013
I am going to be disillusioned with HN if this uninformed speculation isn't
buried.

~~~
neya
So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is?
Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.

~~~
rbanffy
False dichotomy alert: the patent system may be broken in ways other than your
speculation.

I don't think bribes were involved, for instance.

Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not
deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda.

Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figured out
something nobody else did, odds are you're wrong. He used lines on a bank as
an example: if there are two lines and one is much smaller than the other,
they are probably not interchangeable and, if you enter the short one, you may
realize you entered the wrong one.

~~~
neya
>The patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation.

I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS
trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors.

I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my)
speculation'

~~~
rbanffy
I don't disagree with this specific point, but you made a lot of other points
in your post.

I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. We can disagree
in less emotional ways, even if it is an emotional issue for most of us.

~~~
neya
>I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive.

It is true, even when I read my own comment now, I do find it a bit
aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry for that...actually I was kind of taken aback
after reading that Jury's reasoning...and used the same spirit to type that
comment...Nothing is fair in this world..

------
ars
This quote really bugs me:

"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that
the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different
methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older
example and be run without error."

That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about
samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and
not violating the patent.

~~~
cremnob
Here is his full answer:

"Prior art was considered.

But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to
negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently
similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art
was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but
the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely
different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto
the older example and be run without error.

So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even
though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how
you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the
other.

And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the
legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the
media about did we turn our back on prior art."

It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give
them credit for.

~~~
ars
I read the full quote and it's wrong. Period.

If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior
art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.)

It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment
gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although
it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff
up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it
to be tossed).

~~~
cremnob
"Interchangeable code" wasn't the standard. In fact "interchangeable code"
doesn't appear anywhere in the article. What would have invalidated Apple's
patent was if the implementation in their patent was "sufficiently similar" to
the prior art's implementation. They found that it wasn't, so the patent
wasn't invalidated.

I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You
cherry-picked one part of his answer that gives the impression that the only
thing the jury did to determine if the patent is valid is to see if the code
would run on other devices. It isn't, as is clear from the rest of his answer.

I'm not sure how you think this jury "made stuff up" because from his other
answers, they seem to have had a much better understanding of the law and the
facts than followers of this case have had.

~~~
Despite
I believe he was referring to this answer.

Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because
of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.

A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be
interchangeable."

"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read
source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not
the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was
involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load
the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to
work. And the converse of that was true."

Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in
software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what
his conclusion is.

------
danmaz74
"but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely
different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto
the older example and be run without error."

This is just RIDICULOUS. By this line of thought, every time new hardware or
software methodologies come out, you could patent the same old software
solutions again!

If reimplementing a well known feature, algorithm, or whatever on new hardware
isn't obvious "for a practitioner skilled in the art", then I really don't
know what is.

------
antihero
Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock
Android instead of Touchwiz.

~~~
upinsmoke
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of
other Android devices.

~~~
jerrya
I think you're both wrong!

I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the
Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II.

But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and
innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen"
aware apps.

~~~
rustynails77
The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a)
differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade.

On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty
much said "prior art can not be ignored".

~~~
fpgeek
Here's another gem:

"Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the
reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the
judge and told to the court when asked that question.

And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason
it's not among the 26 accused phones. "

The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid 2.

~~~
regularfry
Nice. Except they awarded $130e6 in damages for the Epic 4G. A slider.

~~~
fpgeek
Good catch. I forgot that part.

The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided
"Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.

------
oliwarner
Apple should be asking for a mistrial without prejudice at this point.

If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision
like a pancake in appeals __just __on the interviews of the foreman.

Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...

~~~
rbanffy
A temporary sales ban on previous generation phones is not very valuable. And
Apple is much more exposed to similar sales bans because they have a much
smaller product lineup.

------
sbuk
This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either
side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold
paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the
appeal, of it is allowed, and see.

One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias
exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more
wasted time.

~~~
Shivetya
the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their
foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other
stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the
assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before
the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which
they arrived at their decision.

Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their
views you just want it over?

~~~
eckyptang
And this is where the Jury fails.

A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is
impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at
all.

~~~
sbuk
The jury consisted of 9 people.

------
fijal
Ok, so let me get this straight. Samsung was found infriging on trivial
patents, because they copied the entire look & feel? It does seem to me that
what samsung did was more than a bit unethical (although I did not follow up
enough to have a very good opinion), but the actual reasons why it was found
infriging was something completely different? That makes no sense whatsoever.
The jury foreman is defending a completely irrelevant thing to me.

That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather
than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone
charged for tax evasion.

