41–50 of 56 posts
>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 -…
>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 -…
Please stop appealing to emotions for making an argument that is best supported by hard facts. I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say due to lack of credible sources in your comment and/or logic grounded in verifiable reality outside.
I simply say that:
1) Apple has sued numerous competitors and has won many cases using trivial patents.
2) Numerous competitors have sued Apple for valid, non-BS patents in return and Apple has been found not to infringe a Single patent by ANY of its competitors.
3)In the latest Samsung vs Apple case, numerous inconsistencies were noted by many notable sources (including Groklaw)
And then, I simply say conclude that:
1) Something is wrong with this system; Which may have/most likely involved illegal money (This speculation is because of the reasons above)
2) All these legal systems and patents are hindering innovation. (And I include a personal story of mine, as a member of the start-up community and how it affects us in general)
If you still have a hard time understanding, please let me know. We will have a cup of tea together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 figure…
>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'
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, but the part about bribery is pure speculation. I am also shocked to find this at the top spot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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'
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.
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..
>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 -…
I have no idea if there were any bribes involved. But one should be careful to blame money where just nationalism and fanboyism could explain it. The head of the jury seems also to be a patent troll.
Yep, just had a look at one of his patents. Incased you missed it:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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…
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 th…
He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.
Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "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" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.
It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?
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…
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…
Some facts:
* The jury was selected by both sides.
* Having a patent does not preclude an individual from jury service, even if the case that is being sat is one that covers patent claims.
"he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete" Pure emotive supposition on your part.
"It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision." Not at all. This is an excellent example of cognitive bias. You disagree, for whatever reason, with the findings of the jury, so you rationalise your views and opinions based on this. To you, there simply is no rational explanation as to how Samsung lost. You invent constructs where the judge is corrupt or the jury is biased towards Apple, all based on extremely spurious conjecture. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Samsung were entirely wrong (I do believe that they crossed a line with the first implemetations of the Touchwiz UI and the early Galaxy handsets - Google told them as much), but to paint them as an entirely innocent and wronged party is unbelievably wide of the mark.
"Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?" Yes. These boards. Everyday since the trial ended. It's getting like ground-hog day...
>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 -…
I am going to be disillusioned with HN if this uninformed speculation isn't buried.