[conspire] Patent Case Fall Out

[Paul Zander]

There is yet another factor.  Juries are supposed to be impartial. BUT

Apple is a local company that is "generally" well regarded in community.   Samsung is seen as some foreign entity that isn't paying proper respects to memory of the late Steve Jobs.

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [conspire] Patent Case Fall Out
> To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 12:01 PM
> Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> 
> > Am I the only one deeply upset with the recent ruling
> against
> > Samsung?
> 
> Comprehension is more useful.  Over at Groklaw, PJ has
> posted several
> bits of analysis articulating her view that the jury went
> totally off
> the rails in important ways:
> 
> 1.  Jurors badly misunderstood the concept of 'prior
> art' in patent
> law, erroneously ignored instructions on how to assess that
> evidence,
> and thus summarily rejected Samsung's prior-art evidence in
> defiance
> of the law.  (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963)
> 
> 2.  Jurors' decision was riddled with inconsistencies,
> e.g., ruling that
> Samsung's owed $219,694 in actual damages for model Galaxy
> Tab 10.1 LTE, but
> failed to find that it had infringed any of Apple's
> patents.
> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
> 
> 3.  Jurors believed (ignoring the jury instructions)
> that they were to
> award punitive damages, whereas they were charged with
> assessing actual
> damages if any.
> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
> 
> 4.  The very short time the juries took to deliberate
> on the ~700
> questions on the verdict form was not credible, suggesting
> if nothing
> else did that they did not competently grapple with the
> evidence.
> 
> 5.  The jury foreman is quoted as saying that they had
> not bothered to
> consult the jury instructions on important points ('The
> foreman told a
> court representative that the jurors had reached a decision
> without
> needing the instructions.'
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)
> 
> 6.  During the trial, Judge Koh excluded on very
> questionable ground
> important evidence Samsung had attempted to enter into
> evidence, with
> the result that jury instructions were skewed against
> Samsung.
> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120822133019225)
> 
> 
> PJ is confident that Samsung is preparing a Rule 50(b)
> motion for a new
> trial, or for a directed verdict, and is very confident the
> jury's
> ruling will be overturned.
> 
> On another matter, vanishingly few articles actually
> bothered to detail
> what the specific patents' claims and methods really
> are.  I gather that
> they are design patents.  I also gather that none of
> them address any
> core Android technology, i.e., that they're all piddly UI
> matters.
> 
> Prof. Michael Risch of Villanova Law School praised the
> Groklaw coverage
> as actually competent, accurate, and based on actual cited
> source
> documents.  He agrees with PJ, and predicts that the
> USSC will use this
> case to rein in out-of-control design patents.
> http://madisonian.net/2012/08/25/brief-initial-thoughts-on-apple-v-samsung/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>