The jury foreman in a recent interview confessed that he had a "light bulb moment" after the first day of jury deliberations and was thereafter able to convince the rest of the jury members that the most controversial Apple patents in the case were valid -- because he, the foreman could defend them and could argue to his fellow jury members that there was no prior art.
The impact of that on the jury was described as follows by jury member Manuel Ilagan, who is quoted by Greg Sandoval at CNET.com in Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out:
"The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations. "It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art -- because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.""Prior art has a tendency to do that, to bog down patent claims.
[block emphasis added by LawPundit]
The person who served as jury foreman of the just decided Apple vs. Samsung litigation is himself a patent holder, which has raised questions about that patent and about his potential bias in favor comrade-in-arms neighboring patent holder Apple.
His patent is United States Patent: 7352953.
At best, just read the materials yourself and check out the links:
United States Patent: 7352953:
Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information
You can read that description 20 times and you will still never have a clue as to what "non-obvious" invention or discovery it allegedly involves that was not preceded by significant prior art. Recall, the legal standard is that an invention or discovery to be patentable must be non-obvious to a person versed in the art and can not be anticipated by prior art."Abstract
A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. The apparatus further has the ability to offload the video files (e.g., originally stored in the fixed storage device) to an internal removable media storage device. The video files stored in the internal storage devices may thereafter be retrieved, processed, and provided for viewing on demand at a later time (e.g., on a standard television set, a high-definition television set, flat panel display, computer monitor, or an equivalent output device). One embodiment of the invention includes an apparatus equipped with a wireless keyboard and software that enables a user to access the Web and email services, edit recorded material, download new coder/decoder (Codec) software, order a movie on demand, and/or perform other functions.
. . .
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to video systems, and more particularly, to a method and an apparatus for recording and storing video information.
Personal video recording and storage systems are known in the art. Such systems typically download streaming video to an internal fixed disk drive, which may thereafter be retrieved for viewing on demand. However, such systems typically have a small and limited storage capacity and can therefore only store a limited number of movies along with data contents. As can be seen, techniques that allow for recording, storage, and replay of a large number of video files are highly desirable.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Preferred embodiments of the invention provide a personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing video files to an internal fixed storage device, such as a disk drive. Furthermore, one preferred embodiment of the invention offers the ability to offload these video files (e.g., originally stored in a fixed storage device) to an internal removable media storage device. The video files stored in the fixed and/or removable storage devices may thereafter be retrieved, processed, and provided for viewing on demand at a later time (e.g., on a standard television set, a high-definition television set, flat panel display, computer monitor, or equivalent). "
As far as we can tell, US Patent 7352953 is no more valid than the Apple patents that were erroneously found valid in the instant Apple v. Samsung case.
The jury foreman in his jury capacity was perhaps subconsciously arguing in favor of HIS OWN patent, which apparently took seven years to be granted.
See also
Sean Barrett
Jury foreman convinced Apple/Samsung jury Apple patents were valid. He filed "TiVo+editing" patent 3 years after TiVo. http://www.google.com/patents?id=XjGoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=7352953
Apple v. Samsung: Meet the foreman of the jury - updated at Fortune, CNN
Rick Merritt, EE Times, Jury foreman in Apple vs. Samsung had 'light bulb moment'.
It is really all quite bizarre.
The jury foreman was supposed to be paying attention to the specific instructions of the judge to the jury rather than focusing on his own inventor-like "light bulb moment".
The only actual EUREKA moment that we see in this case is the clear and dominant "Aha!" recognition that the patent system is broken and that jury trials like these on major patent questions are silly jokes beyond reason.
