Proposed jury instructions reveal that Apple has Samsung on the run

“We’re only two weeks ago from the Apple v. Samsung trial in San Jose,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS patents. “On Friday afternoon, Apple and Samsung filed the boilerplate jury instructions they could agree on, and in the evening, they made a 361-page filing to present those instructions they cannot agree on, along with each party’s defense of its own proposals and specific criticism of the other party’s proposals. I read the entire filing because it tells a lot about the key issues and the parties’ tactics.”

“Not only are Samsung’s proposals very defensive but many of its jury instructions reflect a desire to muddy the water and make things difficult to understand, and very confusing, for the jury. That’s consistent with Samsung’s proposed 700-question jury questionnaire,” Mueller writes. “Samsung appears to know quite well that its non-standard-essential patents are too weak to be of concern to Apple (even if Samsung prevailed on any of them, Apple could deal with it), and it’s unlikely to win an injunction over its standard-essential ones. All that Samsung wants is to stall, delay and complicate the process. If they could get the outcome of the Apple v. Motorola case in Chicago (no one wins anything), they would take it any day of the week.”

MacDailyNews Take: Unfortunately for Samsung, Judge Koh doesn’t seem to be an addled, lazy, ought-to-be-retired judge prone to legislating from the bench like Posner.

Mueller writes, “The upcoming trial won’t result in Samsung’s destruction, but it may yield a very significant breakthrough for Apple, which still has a lot of patent arrows in its quiver, while Samsung is not going to win anything meaningful in the foreseeable future.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Judge who tossed Apple’s lawsuit against Google’s Motorola Mobility questions need for patents – July 5, 2012
Judge dismisses entire Apple-Moto patent suit with prejudice – June 23, 2012
Apple, Motorola should just play nice and pay royalties, suggests judge – June 21, 2012

27 Comments

    1. Hey, all right, I’ll turn down the Beethoven. Just testing my new sound system with -20 to +40,000 dB of pure digital power from a 200 watts per channel 5+1 speakers. Or stop on by with some Thelonious Monk. 🙂

  1. “MacDailyNews Take: Unfortunately for Samsung, Judge Koh doesn’t seem to be an addled, lazy, ought-to-be-retired judge prone to legislating from the bench like Posner.”

    And she’s not likely to be on Prozac.

  2. If Samsung spent half the amount of time on innovating that they do on tiptoeing around the legal system they may actually have been able to come up with something decent that isn’t a complete ripoff.

    1. Prior to the iPhone the handset industry was dominated by Nokia, with the balance split among several players. Samsung’s prospects of achieving much as the #2 weren’t good BECAUSE there were so many players..

      Apple caught the entire industry flat footed when they introduced the iPhone in 2007. Many ignored the implications (Nokia, Motorola, RIMM among others) and they are now paying the price.

      HTC is trying to do it right, but suffering in the attempt with a weak OS (Android).

      Samsung, on the other hand, is succeeding by intentionally copying Apple’s IP. It is doing this in order to gain time; time for its competitors (everyone except Apple) to fade into obscurity, and time to develop its own IP that does not infringe.

      Samsung will happily accept the #2 position, but needs to survive to do so. Their strategy is to do just that, no matter what it costs financially. Samsung hopes to win the legal fight over IP, but has no illusions that it will. The point was to survive the shakeout of the industry started by the launch of the iPhone.

      Paying legal costs, fees and penalties is small potatoes compared to the value of being #2. It’s a good strategy, and seems to be working perfectly.

    2. Lawyers are cheap in these United States. Our nation is plagued with well over 3/4 of all the lawyers in the known world. It’s easier to steal and litigate than to innovate- just ask Microsoft and Google.

  3. @MDN: Your “take” is massively off base. Posner is one of the most hard working judges ever. He’s generally now considered an independent conservative in his outlook, having recently developed a disdain for the Republican party (which he describes as “goofy”). You may not like the way he handled a particular case or his views on the state of patent law, but to attack the man as “addled” and “lazy” says more about MDN than it does about Posner.

    1. you really didn’t follow the whole case did you, the man was lazy and by the looks of it most everything he did in the last Apple case will be thrown out on appeal for lack of even attempting to remedy the situation.

      He stuck his foot in his mouth on the last interview he did and has shown his incopadence, once great doesn’t mean always great forever.

      1. I suspect I followed the case more closely than you did. Posner volunteered for the case because IP law is a special interest of his. He also thinks the US patent system is badly broken – a point of view that the majority of posters on this board usually agrees with. You can agree or disagree with how he handled the case, and the parties can certainly appeal. But calling Posner “addled” and “lazy” just sounds like sour grapes.

  4. MDN Take: “addled, lazy, ought-to-be-retired judge prone to legislating from the bench like Posner.”
    You wouldn’t be talking about the Conservative hero appointed by Saint Reagan, would you?

    I had always been told by Conservatives that only liberals legislated from the bench. Now I hear that Roberts (of the Supremes) and Posner are NOT Conservatives- in fact, they are now card carrying Wobblies.

    It’s the end of the world as we know it…
    and I feel fine.
    -r.e.m.

    1. It’s all propaganda rhetoric. One dummy’s ‘legislating from the bench’ is another dummy’s strict interpretation of the law. In the ongoing Marketing Era, nothing we are told is worth believing until it’s verified by science. And scientists rightfully believe that politics is for insecure power parasites, aka The Insane. 😛

      Can we PLEASE just talk about the subject of this website? IOW Apple? Put your politics back up the orifice it came from.

      1. Posner’s decision, which MDN referenced, was a travesty of justice by THE darling judge of the Conservative movement. He had an obvious axe to grind and sought assignment to the case to impose his bias upon the issues at hand instead of conducting a fair hearing based upon the facts. This is a direct result of politics.

        Federal judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate for LIFE and are removed under only the most extreme situations. Politics have consequences from Apple’s Intellectual Property to who was seated after the 2000 election because of judges.

        Americans seem to want it both ways- be uninvolved in politics yet have a responsive and effective government. Hate to tell you, but it does not work that way. We have a crappy government because a huge section of our populace is too lazy to pay attention and just twist in the political wind like a petulant child.

        “Can we PLEASE just talk about the subject of this website? IOW Apple?” Posner’s mishandling the Apple lawsuit is germane and he is a hard right ideologue. It IS the subject at hand.

  5. MDN is once again full of shit. Regardless of your feelings regarding Posner’s opinion regarding the Apple case, he is a respected jurist and scholar who has some interesting ideas regarding the future of the law in the US. And, to set the record straight, I don’t agree with him much of the time. But, his credentials and thinking are logical and well-informed.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.