Comments on: 3 reasons juries have no place in the patent system

By: imispgh

imispgh — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:20:14 +0000

In general oriental cultures do not innovate. That is due to a cultural belief system that does not favor those who think or act outside of the norm. They do not tolerate mavericks very well. What those cultures do extremely well is build others idea very well and make small, but not radical, design improvements. That is why those cultures are very well know for manufacturing but not engineering. Not only the odds but the information in this case point towards Samsung copying Apple. if it were not for Apple exactly what product would Samsung be selling now? How would it look, act and feel?

By: Motorcycle Accident Attorneys Vancouver WA

Motorcycle Accident Attorneys Vancouver WA — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:43:58 +0000

Patent office rules and regulation was followed by juries.

By: jbo5112

jbo5112 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 05:11:59 +0000

Maybe you should look at the “2006 Samsung iPad” and see who came up with the basic look first before deciding who can innovate. At least Apple’s patent on Samsung’s case design wasn’t upheld. If we had a more sensible legal system, Samsung would not be charged $2 million for a patent claim that Groklaw found they never violated, nor would we have groups with legal authority insisting things like demonstration of products that predate the iPhone product group at Apple and include the same iPhone features in question don’t count as prior art. I don’t have the stomach to check more than 3 of these patents, but so far, giving Apple a patent for the look of Samsung’s product is the most sensible.

I will admit that Apple is often first to market with market changing products, but they’re not very innovative. Someone has always beaten them to market on technical terms, but it usually lacks a level of quality for mass appeal.

P.S.
Smartphones date back to 1994, with most of iPhone’s features being on the market before Apple had a product to sell. The only thing new that I know of was a phone having multi-touch.

By: ThinkOpenly

ThinkOpenly — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:27:25 +0000

Doesn’t the America Invents Act (AIA) begin to help out with litigation like this later this month?

By: El

El — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:57:36 +0000

Apple fanboys are mentally ill.

By: MM

MM — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:17:23 +0000

what an original and innovative comment

By: lizzieme

lizzieme — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:36:45 +0000

Hi Jeff, this is really interesting thanks. I discovered it after writing on the subject too – from a design perspective, check it out: http://lizzieme.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/not-allowed-rectangles-with-round-corners-in-design-narrative/ I realise this looks like spam – not sure how to get around that one!

By: Day Jub

Day Jub — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:55:11 +0000

The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a “jury of your peers.” How exactly are these 9 people peers to either Apple or Samsung?

By: alexanderforbes

alexanderforbes — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:32:41 +0000

I think the proposal to replace juries with a tribunal of experts in patent disputes is more dangerous than the ills it proposes to remedy. (1) the patent system is itself a legal process, and to exclude plaintiffs from due process would be wrong. (2) Empaneling a jury free of bias and susceptibility to being swayed is the job of the trial attorneys; (3) ”Experts” can be biased too, but there is no appeal from that, and (4) a panel of programmers would look at the code, determine that different subroutines and methods had been called, and conclude that therefore it is impossible that a look and feel issue could have been copied.

By: Yagya Sen

Yagya Sen — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:46:44 +0000

Actually the definition of patent has to either republish or redefined. May be patent owner are clear about the copycat. why I can’t built something similar to already existed thing but with different methodology or technology. The question arises are what they have applied patent for ? is it the methodology or technology or the material or everything. If everything then Patent system and implementer has to understand that it will not only hinder free economy but also encourage Monopoly and impose restriction and loss for ultimate consumers. If not everything then why not a copycat create the same thing using something which is not patented ( Well you . It’s all manipulation of patent system architecture because it is not robust and has many many weaknesses and loopholes. And the article is right, we should not have jury in patents verdict especially in software patent verdict.