jury
Latest
Texas embraces a virtual jury trial amid coronavirus concerns
A Texas court is conducting what officials believe is the first virtual jury trial.
Uber will give you a free ride to jury duty in one US county
Jury duty may be an annoying (if vital) civic responsibility, but one US county is experimenting with a ridesharing offer that could make it a little more bearable. The County Clerk in Macomb, Michigan is partnering with Uber on a 60-day trial that gives jurors a total of $40 in credit for their rides to and from the courthouse. Ideally, this will save you from having to fight bad weather or pay through the nose for parking when you're trying to serve.
Beyonce tries to escape Gate Five lawsuit again, fails again
Singer Beyonce has failed, once again, to get herself extricated from the impending lawsuit against her by developer Gate Five Studios. Gate Five claims Beyonce agreed to help make a video game called Superstar: Beyonce late last year, but then backed out of the deal, causing severe financial damage to the studio. Beyonce's lawyers attempted to get a summary judgment in April, claiming Gate Five hadn't pulled in the financing needed to make the game, but that attempt was denied.Now the appeal of that judgment has failed. This doesn't mean Beyonce's lost the case, but it does mean that it'll likely go to trial, where a jury will have to determine if Beyonce was within her contract to leave the project, or if she somehow broke the agreement. The main issue seems to be that Beyonce required a certain amount of financing to stay on board, which she says the studio didn't get. Gate Five has suggested that there was an agreement to get the money Beyonce's contract required very soon, and that she knew that deal was all set to take place.Beyonce, we're really happy for you, and we're going to let this finish and all, but Axel Rose had one of the best video game lawsuits of all time. One of the best video game lawsuits of all time!
Apple and Samsung respond to jury's decision in US infringement case
Apple and Samsung both issued statements in response to a California jury's decision that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents. Apple won most, but not all of its claims, while Samsung lost all of its claims against Apple. Apple's response from spokeswoman Katie Cotton was positive, according to a report in the New York Times Bits blog. We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right. Not surprisingly, Samsung said that the decision is "a loss for the American consumer." The company said this about the verdict in a statement reported by the Wall Street Journal: "Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer." As noted by AllThingsD and The Verge, this is only the beginning. Apple will file for an injunction and Samsung will likely appeal the verdict.
Breakdown of the decisions in Apple versus Samsung verdict
The jury handed down its decision today in the case between Apple and Samsung in the US. It was a big win for Apple and a sweeping loss for Samsung, which will have to pay nearly $1.05 billion in damages assuming its appeals do not change the damages (and assuming the judge does not impose additional penalties for willful infringement). Here is a quick breakdown of the claims and how the jury decided on each. '381 patent This patent describes the bounce-back feature that happens when you scroll beyond the edge of an image or document. The jury found that all of Samsung's devices infringe this patent. '915 patent This patent describes the one finger scroll or two finger pinch to zoom gestures. The jury found that all devices except the Intercept and the Replenish were infringing. '163 patent This patent describes the tap to zoom gesture. The jury found that the Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Replenish. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge , Intercept, Nexus 4G and Vibrant did not infringe. 'D677 patent This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy Ace did not infringe. 'D087 patent This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy S II, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G are not infringing. 'D305 patent This patent is a trade dress patent for the iPhone's homescreen. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing. 'D889 patent This patent relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer. The jury found that none of Samsung's tablet devices are infringing. Samsung patents 914, 711, 893, 460, and 516. The jury found that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Sherman antitrust law The jury found Samsung violated Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to the UMTS standard, while Apple did not.
Appeals court affirms Richard Garriott's lawsuit win against NCsoft
Ever since Richard Garriott won his lawsuit against former employer NCsoft last year, the legal process has been grinding on ever since to hash out the details. Today we've learned that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the win of almost $32 million in favor of Garriott. The lawsuit came about after NCsoft fired Garriott in 2008 and then marked his departure as "voluntary," causing his stock options to expire instead of remaining intact through the end of his 2011 contract. In 2010 a court found NCsoft to have breached its contract, and it ordered the company to pay $28 million plus interest and attorney fees to Garriott and his legal team. This recent ruling affirms that outcome and paves the path for Garriott to be compensated. In the ruling, the 5th Circuit Court writes, "It would be unjust to allow NCsoft to sit back during trial, observe Garriott's litigation strategy, and then demand a new trial on damages when it dislikes the verdict." [Source: Androvett Legal Media press release]
Traveler's Tales founder: PSP Go will die if downloads don't get cheaper
While speaking at the Develop Jury Service (a pow-wow for industry figures to discuss current gaming trends and topics), Traveler's Tales founder Jon Burton questioned the prolonged survival of the PSP Go platform, since UMD games can often be purchased new or pre-owned at a lower price than the digital versions compatible with PSP Go. "I own a PSP Go but don't want to buy LittleBigPlanet, for instance, as I can get it 20-percent cheaper on UMD from Amazon and could resell it once I'm finished with it," Burton explained. "But if I download it, I get no discount, and no chance to resell -- how annoying is that?" According to Burton, PSP Go's all-digital system is more than just a minor inconvenience. He later added, "I'm betting on Sony making PSP Go games much cheaper than the UMD versions, or the PSP Go will die." Oh no! The PSP Go is far too tiny and adorable to die so young. Listen to the man, Sony!
Microsoft's $358 million damage award overturned, Alcatel-Lucent likely perturbed
We won't go so far as to compare this to the epic multi-year Broadcom vs. Qualcomm saga, but this is certainly shaping up to be the case that never ends, part II. Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent have been at each other's throats over various things since August of 2007, and while we've seen damages awarded and overturned a few times since, the latest ruling to be handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has A-L waiting a wee bit longer to get its (maybe) due. This past Friday, the court decided that while a $358 million damages award against Microsoft for "violating patents relating to technology that allows users to enter dates into calendars in its Outlook e-mail program" was somewhat legitimate, the damages were "unjustified." The result? The whole thing has to be retried, giving the contracted law firms for both companies immense joy.
Prisoner gets 40 more years for cellphone possession
In a decision being touted by prosecutors as a major victory in the war on inmate cellphone usage, jurors slapped Texan Michael Manor with a surprising 40-year sentence for what they considered the very serious crime of possessing a cellphone in prison. Manor, who was already serving 32 years on auto theft charges, was not even charged with using the phone for criminal purposes; rather, the long sentence comes as a result of a new zero-tolerance cellphone policy in the Texas prison system, where the offense was recently given third-degree felony status. Corrections offers are also a target of the crackdown, with prosecutors promising to bring offenders in front of juries instead of offering them probation, although there are concerns that the stricter penalties may actually make smuggling appear more lucrative.[Via textually]
