"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art."
It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.)
It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it to be tossed).
Yup. The specific jury instructions regarding prior art are online[0]. They're pretty clear and pretty clearly contradict the foreman's interpretation of prior art.
"Interchangeable code" wasn't the standard. In fact "interchangeable code" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. What would have invalidated Apple's patent was if the implementation in their patent was "sufficiently similar" to the prior art's implementation. They found that it wasn't, so the patent wasn't invalidated.
I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You cherry-picked one part of his answer that gives the impression that the only thing the jury did to determine if the patent is valid is to see if the code would run on other devices. It isn't, as is clear from the rest of his answer.
I'm not sure how you think this jury "made stuff up" because from his other answers, they seem to have had a much better understanding of the law and the facts than followers of this case have had.
Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.
A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable."
"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."
Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what his conclusion is.
It might help if you would explain how you think this juror indicates to you that the jury was well informed. When I read this I definitely do not see what you see. Here, I'll break down what I see when I read this:
He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.
Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.
It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?
Sorry, that paragraph sounds like complete bullshit to me. Maybe he doesn't do it deliberately, like he could be completely computer illiterate. Perhaps this is what happens when laymen try to understand computers.
The jury foreman seems to feel that he is some kind of expert on technology patents. Two quotes for the article: "Velvin Hogan said his familiarity with the US patent system helped the jury reach its verdict so quickly" and "Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different - or it might have been the same."
Is it appropriate for a juror to apply their own legal knowledge in this way? I thought that experts were heard as part of the trial process, with the judge advising the jury on the law? Can someone with knowledge of how things work in the US comment on this?
I seriously wonder whether this interview will form the basis of an appeal by Samsung. I certainly hope so.
> It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
Er, his attempted justification for ignoring prior art is completely and utterly wrong, and indeed is so bizarrely wrong-headed, that it suggests more an intentional lie than simple ignorance.
"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.