Given how the jury openly admitted that they refused to consider prior art with regards to invalidating some of Apple's patents, and given the blatant refusal of the trial judge to allow for Samsung to present evidence to defend itself, I sincerely hope the original trial verdict is tossed.
Vel Hogan, jury foreman of Apple vs Samsung made it perfectly clear in a Bloomberg interview that he has a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art. Hogan either ignored the judge's instruction or he willfully chose to not accept the definition of "prior art" because it could invalidate his own patents outside of this trial.
It boils down to a jury of peers, which of course unless these people have actually worked w/ IP and understand how the system is not logical, then they have no way of deciding adequately. It's not their fault, we have moved to "soft" patents which is I came up with an idea, let's patent instead of demonstrating a prototype and limiting it's "prior" art to that application. That is why any soft patent seems ridiculous, because it is. You can apply them to a swath of products now and in the future.
Wait until we get into the network DVR wars. That's next.
We are getting to the point where technology is outpacing 95% or human understanding, so filling the jury with the 95% ers is going to get you some really uninformed decisions.
Also damages here are no treble so even if they awarded it should be for actual damages, not theoretical ones. That would require someone to know exactly the economic loss, and that is not easy--certainly not in a few days.
Just listening to this guy makes my head spin.
In any case I read the patents, and I can't believe they were even issued, so even if they were you can still call them stupid, and invalidate them.
Before I went into tech I was seriously considering to become an IP lawyer. Man did I mess up
I think to claim harm a company should have to bring attention to the harm with in one year of the product existing. After that one year the complaints are automatically voided and the product considered protected by prior art.
My reasoning for this? it would help prevent the issue where something exists for a long time and then someone files a patent lawsuit when the product starts making train loads of money. Because to me when someone holds off that long it reflects more of their awaiting to sue so they can score a big payday. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Wow, Vel Hogan is a moron. He talks about the 460 patent and then says it is valid because apples software would not run on the same processors as the prior art. This is the 460 patent "A method of operating a portable composite communication terminal the functions as both a portable phone and a camera." My nokia did this back in 2002 and I would imagine phones before then even did that. So basically he says samsung violated the patent because samsung's software is compiled to work on the same 3rd party processor.
That is the juror for hell. He had his "ah, ha" moment, lol. What a tool. I would have hated to have to deal with that moron. Those type of people who think they know about technology, but they actually know nothing are dangerous.
This is the 460 patent "A method of operating a portable composite communication terminal the functions as both a portable phone and a camera."
Wow.. Really Apple?
Let's see.. My PPC6800 is both a portable phone and a camera. It runs Windows Mobile 6.1. It still works.
My HTC Touch Pro is both a portable phone and a camera. It runs the last EnergyROM, which is based on Windows Mobile 6.5.5. Yes, it still works too.
Let's see.. I know I have at least a handful of devices that pre-date this so called "patent". Would you like me to send you pictures, Apple? -- Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7] WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7] Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]