Displaying items by tag: Design Patent

Last night the verdict was handed down from the jury in the Samsung V Apple and in a staggering leap of logic the 9 person jury found for that Samsung was guilty of willful infringement on the majority of patents that Apple presented, but that Apple had not infringed at all on the Samsung patents. Then they found that Samsung was not-guilty of Anti-Trust behavior for those attempting to enforce those same patents.  Although our initial reaction was shock, after reading the details of the verdict and taking into account how the trial was handled by Judge Lucy Koh we were actually not surprised.

From the beginning of the Samsung V Apple case we have likened the situation to a battle field.  We have seen ambushes, feints, counters and now landmines. Landmines are one of the worst things that you can find in a battle field. It seems that Samsung laid one down for Apple to step on and the Apple team obligingly did just that. This was in the form of their expert financial testimony about the damages that were due to Apple. Simply put the claims that Apple made were flawed in their core premise that if someone had not opted to by a Samsung phone they would automatically have bought one from Apple.

When we got into the lab this morning and started checking things out we stumbled across something that was simply shocking.  At appears that Judge Lucy Koh has decided to bar testimony of the Samsung designer that started their move to more simple designs. Her claim is that because she did not design any of the phones that Apple claims are infringing her testimony will not be of value: “The risk of undue prejudice to Apple outweighs the probative value of Ms. Park’s testimony”.

Samsung V Apple has been the talk of most media outlets for the past week. This is not surprising at all simply because the stakes in this case are so big. As we are sure you are aware Apple has been running an ongoing PR and legal campaign trying to claim that Samsung (their biggest competitor) willfully copied Apples products including the iPhone and iPad. This is something that many media sites have failed to report on despite parroting the statements and press releases from Apple. It was intended to put a predisposition in the minds of people that Samsung is already guilty of copying.

There are some interesting happenings in the Samsung V Apple trial this morning (well, really overnight). It seems that Apple is working very hard to have sales data sealed. As of right now we do not have the motion that Apple filed, so we are not sure if this means Apple is requesting the evidence not be allowed, or if they just do not want it going public. We are hearing from different sources that they may be asking for either or both (we are guessing that they want it barred as evidence).

Judge Lucy Koh has apparently decided the fate of the Samsung V Apple case all on her own. In fact she has even ordered evidence to be destroyed. Now correct me if I am wrong, but why on earth would ANY judge interested in making a sound and fair decision ask for evidence to be destroyed. The only reason I can think of is that Luck Koh knows that the evidence is valid and would hurt Apple significantly during this trial. It is apparently also something that Samsung knows as well. Samsung are the ones that leaked this rejected evidence to the press. The move was partly to prove the point that Apple borrowed from Sony for the iPhone design and also to show Judge Koh’s bias in the trial.

Yesterday we talked about a finding posted by the US Federal Trade Commission and sent to the US International Trade Commission on how product bans hurt consumers. Although the finding by the FTC was geared toward standards essential patents it also could be argued that any product ban is harmful to consumers unless the product in question was an outright copy. The comment was aimed at Apple and their pattern of filing for broad patents to ensure they have ammunition against competition.