Legal Archive

"Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy.

"No institution is more responsible for the recent explosion of patent litigation in the software industry, the rise of patent trolls, and the proliferation of patent thickets than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patent court's thirtieth birthday this week is a good time to ask whether it was a mistake to give the nation's most patent-friendly appeals court such broad authority over the patent system." Interesting.

"The International Trade Commission voted yesterday to investigate Apple for patent infringement allegations launched by the Google-owned Motorola Mobility. As expected, Motorola is asking for import bans on just about every iOS device, including iPhones, iPods, and iPads. What might be surprising is that Motorola is also asking for a ban on every type of Mac OS X computer, claiming Apple's iMessage technology infringes a Motorola patent." Let's hope all those products get banned. And that all Motorola phones get banned. Let's hope everything gets banned from the US. And yes, I changed Motorola into Google for the headline.

"Nothing is original, says Kirby Ferguson, creator of Everything is a Remix. From Bob Dylan to Steve Jobs, he says our most celebrated creators borrow, steal and transform. Kirby Ferguson explores creativity in a world where 'everything is a remix'." In 9 minutes and 42 seconds, Ferguson explains in plain English why patent and copyright law is fundamentally broken.

"While Apple's technology is a 'very nice invention', the technique used in Android differs from the iOS solution, argued Bas Berghuis van Woortman, one of Samsung's lawyers. Because the Android based method is more hierarchical the system is more complex and therefore harder for developers to use, he said. Apple disagrees. 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true', said Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme to judge Peter Blok, who presided over a team of three judges, in a response to Samsung's claim." I just wish these companies and their lawyers could see and hear themselves. If only for a few seconds. Not even Monty Python could write this. By the way, all these patents were already thrown out last year by the Dutch courts, but Apple started a 'bottom procedure', a more thorough handling of the case. Three expert IP judges preside, and due to the earlier ruling, Apple is fighting an uphill battle.

"This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is still talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination. That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question." Together with the earlier reports, it's quite clear by now this jury messed up completely. If a device with a keyboard can be found to infringe iPhone design patents, then everything can. This verdict should be flushed down the crapper.

Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict. "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement. Come on. This is farce." My favourite inconsistency: a Samsung phone with a keyboard, four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.

Reactions to Apple's yesterday win are in. Tim Cook: "The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right." Samsung: "Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies."

Fantastic work by The Verge. "Although Apple and Samsung did their best to present high-level narratives about copying and product development throughout the trial, the jury's work is far more complicated than simply asking if Samsung copied Apple. Instead, the 20-page verdict form presents around 700 extremely specific questions, divided into 33 groups. These questions exhaustively cover everything at issue in the trial, down to exact dollar amounts Samsung might owe for each of 28 devices accused of copying Apple intellectual property." I don't know just how much power a US jury has, but if I were them, I'd buy a tl;dr stamp and use it on every page of the verdict form. Samsung and Apple ought to be ashamed of themselves.

"After weeks of witnesses, prototypes, and one last failed settlement talk, it came down to this: Apple and Samsung's closing arguments in what is very likely the tech trial of the century. The day saw both sides landing heavy blows before sending the case off to the jury - where anything can happen." The jury has to contend with 109 (!) pages of instructions and a verdict form consisting of whopping 22 pages with over 700 (!) verdicts to make - and they have to be unanimous. This is beyond ridiculous, bordering on the clinically insane. With several options for appeal still open, there is nothing to be gained from this. It's a circus.

"Earlier this month Judge William Alsup ordered Oracle and Google to disclose any journalists or bloggers either has paid that could have commented on the Oracle v. Google case. Both parties responded last week - but Judge Alsup didn't think Google was completely forthright, and has asked the company to try again by the end of the week." Good to know Alsup is on top of this. Google claimed it hadn't paid any shills, but as large and powerful as the company is, I find that very hard to believe.

"The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit. It's been a unique opportunity to peer behind the curtain of how these two companies operate, as the trial seeks to answer the question: did Samsung copy Apple? But there's actually another question that I think is much more interesting to the future of innovation in the technology industry: regardless of whether the courts say that Samsung copied Apple or not, would we all be better off if we allowed - even encouraged - companies to copy one another?" This is very relevant.

This week, Samsung started its defence in the big Apple vs. Samsung thing. First, Samsung pointed towards several cases of prior art, trying to invalidate Apple patents, surely something that's going to be the theme to Samsung's case. Later, Samsung pulled its own software patents out of its a... Neck, claiming Apple infringed them. The patents are just as ridiculous as Apple's, but alas, they have to do something in the face of Apple's anti-competitive aggression. Here is Shepard under a unicorn rainbow.

" tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet." $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.