Judge: Samsung Can't Use TV Shows As Evidence

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The judge in the Apple vs. Samsung case continues to shoot down Samsung's evidence in court. So far, the judge has not allowed Samsung to use the Sony phone, the Compaq TC1000 or the TV shows to demonstrate prior art.

We're two drama-filled days into the Apple vs. Samsung trial, and now Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that Samsung won't be able to use several fictional examples of tablet computing to argue against Apple's iPad patents. In an order today, Koh rejected Samsung's arguments that it should be able to introduce footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the UK television show Tomorrow People, both of which feature characters using tablet devices, as "prior art": pre-existing creations the would call into question the originality and validity of Apple's design patents.
Click to expand...
 
She probably had to close her Macbook's lid and pretend to pay attention to Samsung's lawyers long enough to utter "denied", before she got ready to have lunch at the Apple HQ cafeteria across the street from the courthouse.
 
Ducman69 said:
She probably had to close her Macbook's lid and pretend to pay attention to Samsung's lawyers long enough to utter "denied", before she got ready to have lunch at the Apple HQ cafeteria across the street from the courthouse.
Click to expand...

Oorrrrrrrrrrr, maybe because those devices were fictional and nonfunctional stage props?
 
Azhar said:
Oorrrrrrrrrrr, maybe because those devices were fictional and nonfunctional stage props?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is that the idea existed, and Apple did not create the idea.
 
Azhar said:
Oorrrrrrrrrrr, maybe because those devices were fictional and nonfunctional stage props?
Click to expand...

While true the patents in question are for the look and feel of the device not the functionality. In that case something like the tablet, which was a rectangular device with black bezels, from 2001: A Space Odyssey should be allowed. It simply goes to show that Apple didn't invent that design as they claim.

Then again I still wonder how they can get a patent on a geometric shape in the first place...
 
Azhar said:
Oorrrrrrrrrrr, maybe because those devices were fictional and nonfunctional stage props?
Click to expand...

While true and already stated the function of both devices has nothing to do with the case.

The judge seems hell bent on denying information in this case.
 
I think the judge's actions satisfy the collateral order doctrine so Samsung should just bypass this "judge" and go straight for an interlocutory appeal.
 
Trimlock said:
While true and already stated the function of both devices has nothing to do with the case.

The judge seems hell bent on denying information in this case.
Click to expand...

Yep, and by doing so she's handing Samsung an overturned verdict in Appeals court. All Judge Koh is doing is wasting time and tax payer money. So in the end, once again, the only people benefiting from this patent trolling by Apple (and everybody else) are the lawyers.
 
Is the use of fictional devices even possible as prior art ... if it is then they never should have granted patents on missiles (master of the world), moon rockets (from earth to the moon), automobiles (master of the world), nuclear power (20,000 leagues under the sea, mysterious island), genetically altered foods (mysterious island), or submarines (20,000 leagues under the sea) since Jules Verne wrote about all of those things before they existing in real life ;)
 
Vermillion said:
Yep, and by doing so she's handing Samsung an overturned verdict in Appeals court. All Judge Koh is doing is wasting time and tax payer money. So in the end, once again, the only people benefiting from this patent trolling by Apple (and everybody else) are the lawyers.
Click to expand...

And thus is the reason for "intellectual property" to exist. "Intellectually property" benefits no one except the lawyers.
 
Trimlock said:
While true and already stated the function of both devices has nothing to do with the case.

The judge seems hell bent on denying information in this case.
Click to expand...

Maybe because she is Korean, if she lets Samsung do whatever they want, it may seem like she is favoring her own kind. Lol.
 
So when Apple comes out with the iPhone 5, thats thinner and has a large screen, can Samsung or HTC sue Apple for copying thier design?
 
nutzo said:
So when Apple comes out with the iPhone 5, thats thinner and has a large screen, can Samsung or HTC sue Apple for copying thier design?
Click to expand...

You sir win the Intarwebz!

The issue there is Apple will probably claim they have a patent on that too. :rolleyes:
 
Azhar said:
Oorrrrrrrrrrr, maybe because those devices were fictional and nonfunctional stage props?
Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY why they should be allowed. To show that a huge chunk of the ideas in these pads came from CULTURE and that jsut because someone implements it shouldnt grant them super exclusive rights over the idea.
 
Spire3660 said:
Which is EXACTLY why they should be allowed. To show that a huge chunk of the ideas in these pads came from CULTURE and that jsut because someone implements it shouldnt grant them super exclusive rights over the idea.
Click to expand...
well except for that strange little factoid that patents protect implementation and not ideas
 
I think that the issue, in this case, is that Samsung is not allowed to try to prove where Apple may have got the ideas for their designs from, as this would be seen as speculation. Samsung is only allowed to prove where they got Samsung’s designs from.

To help understand how this works: Samsung cannot give evidence on behalf of Apple claiming that Apples designers saw Star Trek and also saw on it an iPad type device, to an unknown extent, on an unspecified scene on an unspecified range of episodes, under whatever state of mind etc.
 
lordshado said:
the next generation had the tablet first. :eek:
Click to expand...

I was watching Star Trek the other day and I noticed that we've surpassed 24th century technology!!! At least when it comes to the tablet device, as Picard had a number of tablets strewn about his desk for different reports and what not.

Sheesh, 1 tablet and swipe to the next report!
 
I am going to start patenting everything from the movies, eventually I will make money..
 
GaryJohnson said:
But they're not alleging they copied the function - just the interface, packaging, and style.
Click to expand...
How the hell this is a patent I don't understand at all, even in Europe (the cases brought in Germany and Netherlands) I studied intellectual property law in England, I assumed Apple's complaint would be of 'passing off' - look and feel is not patent law. How/why are Apple getting patents for this at all? I suppose which law it comes under doesn't matter anyway. The function strongly dictates form for all tablets.

Ultimately it's just a small display with a computer behind it. Everyone always wants thin bezels, in case of tablets just enough to hold without your finger over the actual screen. No sharp edges, light weight, thin. Speakers have to be positioned for stereo L & R, and out of the way of thumbs. Remember that Blue Jeans Cable response to Monster Cable's threat? I think this this is pretty damn similar territory. Would anyone try to patent the look and feel of a monitor or TV and say no other brand can sell a thin display with thin bezels?

There's nothing about the packaging of iPad that strikes me as novel, it all obvious and completely dictated by what the device has to do. Frankly nobody is confusing any of Samsung's designs for Apples. They're LG and Samsung screens, ARM CPUs and a lot of other off the shelf components. What exactly did Apple invent?

The only possible issue of confusion is that some people refer to tablets as iPads in the same way that people say Hoover when they mean vacuum cleaner. It's not really confusing the actual product or brand - Panasonic Hoover, Dyson Hoover etc is what people say, but they still know they're buying Panasonic or Dyson, not Hoover. Surely Apple can't prevent other tablets on the grounds that in some peoples minds iPad == tablet.

I think the judges are either corrupt or not competent, it seems so straightforward that Apple's claim should be thrown out. They may have specific details in the OS design that they can lay claim to, but even some of those seem tenuous and as desperate as the look and feel somehow being an invention.
 
IanM said:
What exactly did Apple invent?
Click to expand...

In the most basic terms the patent says they invented a rectangular object, with rounded corners, that has a black bezel.

If Samsung had done a hot pink (or any color other then black) bezel we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
DW-UK said:
I think that the issue, in this case, is that Samsung is not allowed to try to prove where Apple may have got the ideas for their designs from, as this would be seen as speculation. Samsung is only allowed to prove where they got Samsung’s designs from.

To help understand how this works: Samsung cannot give evidence on behalf of Apple claiming that Apples designers saw Star Trek and also saw on it an iPad type device, to an unknown extent, on an unspecified scene on an unspecified range of episodes, under whatever state of mind etc.
Click to expand...

So you're missing the obvious, that Samsung is trying to prove that Samsung was inspired by those devices and not the iPhone.
 
DW-UK said:
I think that the issue, in this case, is that Samsung is not allowed to try to prove where Apple may have got the ideas for their designs from, as this would be seen as speculation. Samsung is only allowed to prove where they got Samsung’s designs from.

To help understand how this works: Samsung cannot give evidence on behalf of Apple claiming that Apples designers saw Star Trek and also saw on it an iPad type device, to an unknown extent, on an unspecified scene on an unspecified range of episodes, under whatever state of mind etc.
Click to expand...

Hard has too much hostility toward Apple to listen to this. Anything that ever goes in Apples way ever is because of underhandedness.
 
Samsung’s best defence is to prove that the form of their product was in fact determined by the influence of a number of preset design rules. They should account for the source of those design rules, and show how those rules dictated the form of the end product over time. For example, it should be possible to prove that there were manufactures out there, at around year 2005, who started to produce thinner & wider mobile phone batteries.

Samsung needs to show how their product evolved independently to Apple’s (albeit under the same design rules).
 
Cali3350 said:
Hard has too much hostility toward Apple to listen to this. Anything that ever goes in Apples way ever is because of underhandedness.
Click to expand...

And Apple supporters defend Apple without being able to see that this:

So you're missing the obvious, that Samsung is trying to prove that Samsung was inspired by those devices and not the iPhone.
Click to expand...

is the same thing as

I think that the issue, in this case, is that Samsung is not allowed to try to prove where Apple may have got the ideas for their designs from, as this would be seen as speculation.
Click to expand...

Just using it as a "we got our inspiration from Star Trek" versus "they got their inspiration from Star Trek." Either way, it wasn't an original idea.
 
What I want to know is the exact reason as to why the judge is dismissing this evidence.

It would appear that there is either a very strong bias here or someones pockets are getting full. That, in reality, is the only thing I can think of.

It seems like the judge is simply just trying to give Apple the case.
 
bobzdar said:
So you're missing the obvious, that Samsung is trying to prove that Samsung was inspired by those devices and not the iPhone.
Click to expand...

I am not missing the obvious. You are missing the obvious. The obvious is that the evidence was not allowed for an obvious reason. The evidence on the one about Sony was the same.
 
Just looking at the article in the OP

pre-existing creations the would call into question the originality and validity of Apple's design patents. While the footage had been introduced into the case in 2011 as background, Samsung hadn't disclosed at the time that it ever intended to use it to argue for patent invalidity. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal had previously ruled that Samsung couldn't change its mind late in the game since Apple wouldn't have time to prepare a proper response for the trial; Koh agreed.
Click to expand...
The Samsung lawyers have been hopeless and the judges are sticking rigidly to procedure, perhaps reasonable? However the validity of Apple's patent is surely at the very core of the argument, in the interests of justice surely the court must accommodate a challenge to the patent, regardless of any delay.
 
IanM said:
They're LG and Samsung screens, ARM CPUs and a lot of other off the shelf components. What exactly did Apple invent?
Click to expand...
What Apple "invented" was the iPad. Hopefully that's not in dispute. They put all those LG, Samsung, and ARM components into a neat little package and marketed it to the public.

They also pay LG, Samsung, and ARM a royalty to use their components because (and this answers your other question in the post as to who goes around patenting this kind of stuff) they patented their products.

In a more reasonable space we'd be able to have a discussion about this but it's unlikely here. Suffice to say that patents don't stop people from using other people's inventions. They just mean everyone involved with some level of ownership of the *thing* gets to sit around the table and come to some kind of monetary agreement for the privilege of doing so.

Apple and Samsung have a long history of not being able to come to agreements over some of their stuff. They also have a long history of working together over other things so apparently this is part of the normal course of business

at least, we don't see ARM and Apple in court every week and believe that ARM has its products protected as solid as any competent and successful business would. Apple doesn't walk around pretending to have invented ARM processors but neither do consumers generally care to know what's inside of an iPad or their TV sets for that matter so it's irrelevant. Only in few places do people wonder what's so special about iPads and etc. because it's clearly obvious to them all of the components involved in creating a tablet. It's obvious like a tire obviously should be made from rubber...yet that is patented as well. It's obvious until we start making tires out of kevlar and then people will wonder just what the heck was so special about antiquated, puncturable, and crackable rubber.

Then people will bitch and moan about the obviousness of using kevlar for tires instead of rubber but of course very few will wonder why it too a hundred years for that obvious thing to happen and exactly what went into the process of that obvious thing to become reality and widespread.
 
wonderfield said:
That alone doesn't qualify as prior art. Like it or not, she made the right call on this one.
Click to expand...

How so?

If they created their design inspired from a TV show, shouldn't that obviously mean they didn't create their design off of Apple?
 
Ducman69 said:
She probably had to close her Macbook's lid and pretend to pay attention to Samsung's lawyers long enough to utter "denied", before she got ready to have lunch at the Apple HQ cafeteria across the street from the courthouse.
Click to expand...

In her defense she needed to use her ner Macbook to check to make sure the deposit for this ruling was put into her account in a timely manner so she could be sure how to rule on it.
 
bobzdar said:
So you're missing the obvious, that Samsung is trying to prove that Samsung was inspired by those devices and not the iPhone.
Click to expand...

Same actually. Samsung cannot prove that they watched Star Trek at the said times.:D
 
The ruling is correct in the context of the argument. Samsung is arguing that "look sony had this, star trek had this, tomorrow people had this...this conceptual idea has existed since the early 60's" That is not a valid argument that they did not viloate the patent for look and feel.

Now if the creator of the idea for the tablet on star trek or any of those other shows wanted to sue apple..well then the evidence would be allowed.

The basic argument is "we patented the look and feel of this device, you then released your own device that was almost identical to our look and feel, therefore you should stop selling your device."

Argung the device has existed in concept for decades does not invalidate apple's claim. The only way it would if Samsung could prove they had a device before the Ipad.
 
groebuck said:
The ruling is correct in the context of the argument. Samsung is arguing that "look sony had this, star trek had this, tomorrow people had this...this conceptual idea has existed since the early 60's" That is not a valid argument that they did not viloate the patent for look and feel.

Now if the creator of the idea for the tablet on star trek or any of those other shows wanted to sue apple..well then the evidence would be allowed.

The basic argument is "we patented the look and feel of this device, you then released your own device that was almost identical to our look and feel, therefore you should stop selling your device."

Argung the device has existed in concept for decades does not invalidate apple's claim. The only way it would if Samsung could prove they had a device before the Ipad.
Click to expand...

Something like that, yes: Not a strong enough argument. Speculation. Ambiguous. Too vague. Particularly in terms of timeline of influence.
 
Serpent said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Because they aren't fully-formed inventions, nor are they real products, available to consumers or to industry, nor intended to be real products.

Besides, it isn't really Samsung's place to make a move like this. They didn't create what they argue to be prior art and can't argue for the invalidation of Apple's patents because of what they claim to be prior art. They're just throwing whatever they possibly can at the court and hoping something sticks.
 
mope54 said:
well except for that strange little factoid that patents protect implementation and not ideas
Click to expand...

Sorry, the protect the ownership of ideas by regulating implimentation. Ideas are patented, control of the implementation to awarded to the patent holder.
 
Vermillion said:
In the most basic terms the patent says they invented a rectangular object, with rounded corners, that has a black bezel.
Click to expand...
Which is not only assinine that one would be allowed to patent something so generic, but to throw out various evidence that shows Samsung had plenty of inspiration around for such a basic shape/color, and that Apple was hardly the first to think of such a revolutionary design concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top