2 votes

Judge Koh in Apple vs. Samsung Case Makes Questionable Judgement Call

'Samsung is objecting to a video created by the Federal Judicial Center called "How patents work," which is designed to help jurors wrap their heads around the often-complex and confusing U.S. patent system. But as Samsung's legal team noted, "at the 2:55 mark, a series of Apple products are shown, including an iPad, a newer model of a laptop computer, and an iPhone. The narration during this portion of the video addresses how the disclosure of a patent may 'inspire new inventions.'"

Samsung stated in its objection that "at a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable." Which is the basis of the filing by Samsung.

Quote from Samsung:
“Because Apple’s alleged innovation is a central disputed issue in this trial, it would be highly prejudicial to Samsung to show the jury — before any evidence is introduced — an official instructional video that depicts Apple products in such a context. Doing so would raise serious concerns about Samsung’s ability to obtain a ‘fair trial’ by ‘impartial’ jurors,” which is one of the most ‘fundamental’ interests that exists under the Constitution.”

Judge Lucy Koh has overruled Samsung's objection of the video. The Korean manufacturer argued that the video would be "highly prejudicial" since it would show Apple's devices on a video about patents. Apple, on the other hand, wants the jury to see the 17 minute clip.'



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Garan's picture

Tech World has Tons of Innovation without Patent Inspirations

Patents are not needed to inspire.

All that I have to say regarding Scamsung & Apple innovation



Scamsung has already lost and been ordered to pay Apple $890,000,000 for copying iPhone/iPad. Apple has been demolishing Scamsung both in US courts and other nations' courts as well.

Most recent Scamsung "innovation"

September 2013

Apple iPhone 5s: Gold, with Home button fingerprint scanner

Half a year later

Scamsung S5: Gold, with home button fingerprint scanner

Scamsung® We try to copy Apple™

If you believe in IP you don't believe in freedom

I am not obliged to have to pay taxes because you want to socialize the cost to protect your market niche on to me. In fact I am morally opposed to any market protectionism for anyone whatsoever.

As a utilitarian matter, such protection just drives up prices and reduces quality for the consumer, and stifles innovation, contrary to the assertions of fascists.

The fact that this immoral idea is ensconced in the Constitution is unfortunate, but since the government doesn't obey the Consitution anyway, I don't see why I have to pretend this was ever a good idea or remotely libertarian or remotely free market.

Also Apple sucks.

The only things they do 'well' are aesthetics, as all your pictures show it was aesthetics Samsung copied, if they coipied anything at all. As a tech guy I could give a crap about aesthetics, so I use androids since I can write my own programs without paying off apple for permission and I would use anything that competed with android if it were open source.

yeah but

that doesnt say anything about what patents Samsung holds.


Having the Sidekick, Palm, and the numerous Windows Phones with a full display on the front and no visible keyboard (with a Desktop theme that displayed icons like a Windows PC) years before the iPhone is enough for me to at least understand Samsung's argument. I just do not see how this would not be the next logical step. Now whether these patents should have been granted from the start is a whole other question altogether.

But in this matter, it is about a justice department that would allow an "explanation of patents" video including images of the product in question to a jury before any evidence is introduced to the courtroom. That seems sketchy if you ask me.

"Tough nuts"

That'd be the common-sense ruling in favor of Samsung if intellectual property law had anything to do with common sense. Did Diamler sue Benz when he switched from three to four wheels? These laws trample the idea of free-market competition and promote trolling.


Anyone know if this is normal practice to show a video that may even have the chance of being biased to a jury pre-trial? This just seems really, really questionable to me.

Does everything have to be spelled out to everyone now? The world is now catering to the stupids.