Apple loses patent claim against Samsung in Tokyo court(ibnlive.in.com)
ibnlive.in.com
Apple loses patent claim against Samsung in Tokyo court
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/apple-loses-to-samsung-in-japan-patent-case/287057-11.html
72 comments
Superfluous much?
"lay juries" - A jurer is by definition a layman. If a jury was full of experts it would completely miss the point.
"incontrovertible errors" - I guess you are talking about the (relatively) tiny misappropriated damages? This was fixed at the time, and it was not denied or disputed. Wonder why you chose to qualify this as such and not provide any specifics?
Edit: clarity.
"lay juries" - A jurer is by definition a layman. If a jury was full of experts it would completely miss the point.
"incontrovertible errors" - I guess you are talking about the (relatively) tiny misappropriated damages? This was fixed at the time, and it was not denied or disputed. Wonder why you chose to qualify this as such and not provide any specifics?
Edit: clarity.
Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android (and various other) devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower.
A juror is by definition a layman in America; however, other places do in fact exist, and there are and have been all sorts of qualifications for being on juries around the world.
Finally, you are right: it was indeed the impossible logic of the damage awards that makes it possible to just say it plain that the jury in that made a fast decision that was clearly (incontrovertibly) erroneous.
(I think that other aspects of the verdict also show incorrect understanding/thinking, but that discussion gets more nuanced.)
A juror is by definition a layman in America; however, other places do in fact exist, and there are and have been all sorts of qualifications for being on juries around the world.
Finally, you are right: it was indeed the impossible logic of the damage awards that makes it possible to just say it plain that the jury in that made a fast decision that was clearly (incontrovertibly) erroneous.
(I think that other aspects of the verdict also show incorrect understanding/thinking, but that discussion gets more nuanced.)
> Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android and various other devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower.
You don't need to defend yourself on this. Ever since the trial decision, Apple fanboys have been upset at people raining on their parade with facts. And there's certainly no shortage of Apple fanboys on HN.
You don't need to defend yourself on this. Ever since the trial decision, Apple fanboys have been upset at people raining on their parade with facts. And there's certainly no shortage of Apple fanboys on HN.
Firstly you are quire right and I removed my 'team' comment very soon after I had posted it, it was irrelevant to the conversation.
I agree that the definition of a jury varies widely around the world, however this point was (in reference to your comparison) specific to the US trial.
With the decisions, why does it not cross your mind that they had actually plenty of time to make up their minds during the trial? Everybody seems to believe they should have been utterly impartial up to and including the point they were instructed by the judge, but these are human beings, jurors, and right or wrong they had plenty to time to come to conclusions, especially with the damning emails/documents from Samsung. Everybody is expecting a jury to have behaved like a well versed and highly trained expert lawyer.
So yes, even if they did show incorrect understanding this is completely irrelevant, they are not supposed to be the experts you think they should have been.
I agree that the definition of a jury varies widely around the world, however this point was (in reference to your comparison) specific to the US trial.
With the decisions, why does it not cross your mind that they had actually plenty of time to make up their minds during the trial? Everybody seems to believe they should have been utterly impartial up to and including the point they were instructed by the judge, but these are human beings, jurors, and right or wrong they had plenty to time to come to conclusions, especially with the damning emails/documents from Samsung. Everybody is expecting a jury to have behaved like a well versed and highly trained expert lawyer.
So yes, even if they did show incorrect understanding this is completely irrelevant, they are not supposed to be the experts you think they should have been.
> If a jury was full of experts it would completely miss the point.
The "lay jury" in the USA Apple vs Samsung case where obviously a bunch of idiots, so if the "jury was full of experts" I suspect then may well have done a better job.
How can any competent jury in a patent law suit some how decide to ignore "prior art"!
Read for yourself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
Edit: From the link:
> 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."
The "lay jury" in the USA Apple vs Samsung case where obviously a bunch of idiots, so if the "jury was full of experts" I suspect then may well have done a better job.
How can any competent jury in a patent law suit some how decide to ignore "prior art"!
Read for yourself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
Edit: From the link:
> 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."
Incontrovertible errors: Jury foreman says Apple patents valid due to different processor architecture
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4446102
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4446102
Which errors?
E.g., finding a given Samsung product didn't infringe on Apple's patents, but nevertheless awarding damages for it.
Edit: I believe the judge fixed the most egregious errors, but post-verdict interviews with the jury make it seem like they were confused on various different fronts.
Here's one link describing some of those problems: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Edit: I believe the judge fixed the most egregious errors, but post-verdict interviews with the jury make it seem like they were confused on various different fronts.
Here's one link describing some of those problems: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
That doesn't make sense. What happened?
Velvin Hogan happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052
Holy crap. Prior art was disregarded because the Apple patented methods couldn't run on the old hardware:
>"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."
Wut.
>"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."
Wut.
Yep, it was all a farce, for variety of reasons[0]. This Hogan guy, as the foreman, probably fucked things up the most, with his "knowledge" about patents. There was probably some pro-Apple fanboyism in the mix too.
0: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486
0: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486
From that article:
> > Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
> I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
> > Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
> I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
They aren't juries, they're judges. Lay judges.
Yes, sorry, you are right. The new law here in Japan requires citizens to serve as "lay judges" and not "juries".
I don't know offhand all of the distinctions here (I think one difference is lay judges decide both guilt/innocence and the sentence, if guilty) but I think the Japanese system pretty similar to what Americans would think of as a "jury".
Precisely speaking, however, they are indeed "lay judges".
I don't know offhand all of the distinctions here (I think one difference is lay judges decide both guilt/innocence and the sentence, if guilty) but I think the Japanese system pretty similar to what Americans would think of as a "jury".
Precisely speaking, however, they are indeed "lay judges".
As far as I can comprehend from WP[0] "lay judges" have a more direct role in trials, where juries are mainly observers and merely make a decision based on the trial (including any instruction the judge gives them on evidence, assumptions, etc.). Interesting system, but I'm not really in a position to say which would be more effective (if either).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan
It's a shame that a 'article' with so little information makes on the frontpage of HN. These days the headline needs just to name Apple and it is guaranteed to show up on the frontpage.
I wonder if someone could write a plugin to just ban all Apple news from HN.
Edit: typo.
I wonder if someone could write a plugin to just ban all Apple news from HN.
Edit: typo.
Sorry for posting a link with very little details.
But I think this is a breaking story and needs to be covered.
Here are some more sources: https://news.google.co.in/news/story?q=reuters+japan+apple+s...
But I think this is a breaking story and needs to be covered.
Here are some more sources: https://news.google.co.in/news/story?q=reuters+japan+apple+s...
There will be interesting news related to Apple, but all those patent cases should disappear, no matter who is involved.
There is very little possibility for a constructive discussion.
If nothing else, it reinforces that people who think they are being hip when they make Apple-only or iOS-only or iOS/Retina-tailored solutions are working for the dark side(tm). Heck, even if you make mobile apps, also for Android, but do iOS first, you are part of the problem.
I think these people need to hear it again and again and again until they actually get it and stop supporting one of the least ethical companies in the tech industry today. You are giving the wicked emperor more power. Stop doing that! It wont make him any nicer.
I say keep them coming. Filtering news to ease the conciousness of people assisting "evil" makes no sense.
We should be the ones driving Apple. Apple should not be the one driving us. We've seen the result of that already.
Edit: specific industry-niche qualifier was needed.
I think these people need to hear it again and again and again until they actually get it and stop supporting one of the least ethical companies in the tech industry today. You are giving the wicked emperor more power. Stop doing that! It wont make him any nicer.
I say keep them coming. Filtering news to ease the conciousness of people assisting "evil" makes no sense.
We should be the ones driving Apple. Apple should not be the one driving us. We've seen the result of that already.
Edit: specific industry-niche qualifier was needed.
>... one of the least ethical companies around today.
Are you serious? You believe a computer company is one of the least ethical companies?
Are you serious? You believe a computer company is one of the least ethical companies?
Fair enough. Let me make an edit and prepend "in the tech-industry" to that statement and I'll stand for it.
Apple has joined the rank of patent-trolls and turned what used to be a tech-industry into a litiagative minefield where you need more lawyers than engineers to do a business. They are the front-runners of software-patents and they deserve all the flack they get for it.
I don't think there's any debating that patent-trolls are evil and that supporting them are wrong.
Apple has joined the rank of patent-trolls and turned what used to be a tech-industry into a litiagative minefield where you need more lawyers than engineers to do a business. They are the front-runners of software-patents and they deserve all the flack they get for it.
I don't think there's any debating that patent-trolls are evil and that supporting them are wrong.
Did they turn it into this minefield? Or do they just play the 'evil' game better than others.
I'm don't like to split things into 'Good' and 'Evil' (as they are inherently subjective). But the patent system seems to be the problem here, and until it is removed one has to work within it.
I'm don't like to split things into 'Good' and 'Evil' (as they are inherently subjective). But the patent system seems to be the problem here, and until it is removed one has to work within it.
They are not the only ones turning it into a minefield, but they most definitely participate in making it a deadly game to play. If they were using their patents in a defensive way I would have a different attitude but it seems to me they are rather aggressive in using their patents to go after people they feel are a threat.
Yet they're also stepping up to the plate to defend their platform developers in the Lodsys dispute.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/court-allows-apple-to-i...
As with most of life, this is not the black-and-white situation that people make it out to be.
Samsung clearly did everything they could to make a bunch of their products seem like Apple products and increase customer confusion.
Apple clearly got patents for things which seem to be fairly obvious or which under better analysis would not have been granted. It's also easy for me to say that something is obvious…five years after it became widely available to the public, and seven years after most of us first saw similar stuff shown in a TED video.
Gooterola (Moogle?) clearly is abusing FRAND obligations on some of their standards-essential patents. As far as I can tell, Samsung is trying to abuse some of their FRAND standards-essential patents, too.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/court-allows-apple-to-i...
As with most of life, this is not the black-and-white situation that people make it out to be.
Samsung clearly did everything they could to make a bunch of their products seem like Apple products and increase customer confusion.
Apple clearly got patents for things which seem to be fairly obvious or which under better analysis would not have been granted. It's also easy for me to say that something is obvious…five years after it became widely available to the public, and seven years after most of us first saw similar stuff shown in a TED video.
Gooterola (Moogle?) clearly is abusing FRAND obligations on some of their standards-essential patents. As far as I can tell, Samsung is trying to abuse some of their FRAND standards-essential patents, too.
Mercutio:
I am hurt.
A plague a' both your houses! I am sped.
Is he gone and hath nothing? Gooterola (Moogle?) clearly is abusing FRAND obligations
on some of their standards-essential patents. As far as I
can tell, Samsung is trying to abuse some of their FRAND
standards-essential patents, too.
…except that when you introduce a patent that's standards-essential to a standards body for use in that standard, you are making a legally binding pledge not to weaponize that patent and to make it available to everyone under the same Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory rules.
Apple hasn't done that, except with some of the patents it has that are part of H.264.
Apple hasn't done that, except with some of the patents it has that are part of H.264.
The Lodsys dispute has nothing in common with what I was saying. Lodsys overstepped by trying to sue individuals for patent infringement when they were covered because Apple already licensed said patent for their platform.
Plus the fact this isn't Apple using a patent defensively, or in fact has anything to do with Apple having patents in the first place, they are defending developers that are part of their ability to generate profit. You can say they are stepping up to do the right thing by getting involved but it doesn't excuse their antics with being aggressive with their patent lawsuits.
I agree that Samsung copied aspects of Apple products, my dispute is whether there was anything technically wrong with them doing so. I say in many cases it was not, regardless of whatever patents they may have.
I like Moogle better but I'm betting Rowling would sue since it's so close to her creation.
Plus the fact this isn't Apple using a patent defensively, or in fact has anything to do with Apple having patents in the first place, they are defending developers that are part of their ability to generate profit. You can say they are stepping up to do the right thing by getting involved but it doesn't excuse their antics with being aggressive with their patent lawsuits.
I agree that Samsung copied aspects of Apple products, my dispute is whether there was anything technically wrong with them doing so. I say in many cases it was not, regardless of whatever patents they may have.
I like Moogle better but I'm betting Rowling would sue since it's so close to her creation.
I wouldn't have posted what I did if I agreed with your assertion that there's nothing in common. I also disagree with your assertion that what Apple's doing with patents is 'antics', but I know what you are saying.
This whole patent mess is, as I was trying to imply, complicated. A lot of it is up for interpretation. As I understand it, a lot of people are focusing on two things supposedly from the Apple-Samsung trial result: the obviousness of pinch-to-zoom and the trade dress stuff.
Regarding pinch-to-zoom being 'obvious', Steve Wildstrom[1] covered this nicely two days ago—it wasn't asserted at the trial. Nilay Patel also pointed out[2] that Apple doesn't have an exclusive patent for all pinch-to-zoom implementations, just theirs. So, the patents (ignoring, for the moment, the trade dress patents) that Apple asserted are in question. Apparently, there are alternative implementations in Android, but for whatever reason, Samsung decided to implement something else that was ultimately found to infringe.
On the trade dress…as I understand it, we don't allow copyright on object shapes, nor can you trademark it, so to allow for distinctive object appearance the concept of trade dress patents was created. Agree or disagree with them, these exist. There are some fairly interesting tablet and phone designs out there, and Samsung, for at least a couple of versions of tablets and phones, fairly slavishly copied Apple's appearance. They deserved to be slapped for this. There's a term for this: knockoff. Most people who recognize a knockoff deride it—yet Samsung was praised.
I am…slightly more in favour of trade dress patents than I am in favour of software patents in general (my general opinion on those is that they're bad or that at a very minimum they require both a deeper prior art search and/or a stricter test for non-obviousness).
Getting back to the whole "it's complicated" bit…Apple isn't an innocent here, and I think they are taking a risk with this sort of litigation that simply kicking competitors' asses in the marketplace (like taking the majority of the profit out of the smartphone market…) would do just as well. I think Apple's risk is brand tarnishment (they really don't want to be seen as the 400 kilo gorilla) and increased governmental oversight (look at what happened to Microsoft).
[1] http://techpinions.com/pinch-to-zoom-and-rounded-rectangles-... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo...
This whole patent mess is, as I was trying to imply, complicated. A lot of it is up for interpretation. As I understand it, a lot of people are focusing on two things supposedly from the Apple-Samsung trial result: the obviousness of pinch-to-zoom and the trade dress stuff.
Regarding pinch-to-zoom being 'obvious', Steve Wildstrom[1] covered this nicely two days ago—it wasn't asserted at the trial. Nilay Patel also pointed out[2] that Apple doesn't have an exclusive patent for all pinch-to-zoom implementations, just theirs. So, the patents (ignoring, for the moment, the trade dress patents) that Apple asserted are in question. Apparently, there are alternative implementations in Android, but for whatever reason, Samsung decided to implement something else that was ultimately found to infringe.
On the trade dress…as I understand it, we don't allow copyright on object shapes, nor can you trademark it, so to allow for distinctive object appearance the concept of trade dress patents was created. Agree or disagree with them, these exist. There are some fairly interesting tablet and phone designs out there, and Samsung, for at least a couple of versions of tablets and phones, fairly slavishly copied Apple's appearance. They deserved to be slapped for this. There's a term for this: knockoff. Most people who recognize a knockoff deride it—yet Samsung was praised.
I am…slightly more in favour of trade dress patents than I am in favour of software patents in general (my general opinion on those is that they're bad or that at a very minimum they require both a deeper prior art search and/or a stricter test for non-obviousness).
Getting back to the whole "it's complicated" bit…Apple isn't an innocent here, and I think they are taking a risk with this sort of litigation that simply kicking competitors' asses in the marketplace (like taking the majority of the profit out of the smartphone market…) would do just as well. I think Apple's risk is brand tarnishment (they really don't want to be seen as the 400 kilo gorilla) and increased governmental oversight (look at what happened to Microsoft).
[1] http://techpinions.com/pinch-to-zoom-and-rounded-rectangles-... [2] http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo...
I cannot believe that anyone that bought a Samsung phone thought they were getting an iPhone. As much as they may have tried to make it look or act similar, it's still not an iPhone. Now if they made a phone like those Chinese knock-off iPhones that literally looks exactly like the iPhone, then sure, they violated trademark or something. But the whole idea that Apple lost sales to Samsung because people were confused an thought they were buying an iPhone is crazy.
It's not crazy. Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
People will think that Samsung is just selling a version of Apple's iPhone. After all, that's what a lot of phone manufacturers do. HTC sells a version of an Android phone. Samsung sells…you get the idea.
People not steeped in geekery tend not to understand manufacturer licensing.
People will think that Samsung is just selling a version of Apple's iPhone. After all, that's what a lot of phone manufacturers do. HTC sells a version of an Android phone. Samsung sells…you get the idea.
People not steeped in geekery tend not to understand manufacturer licensing.
I take it you haven't had to deal with Oracle much? That's an easy target, and I could list many more that exhibited far worse behavior than Apple has in the last ten years. But hey, Apple is the new evil for everyone who feels compelled to periodically pick up a pitchfork and torch.
I wonder what company it will be in 2020?
I wonder what company it will be in 2020?
Apple didn't start this. Incumbents did, Apple is better at it and better funded than incumbents, yet even so settled with Nokia. Don't hate them for hitting back hard.
Supposing he meant "least ethical computer companies" it's still very doubtful, assuming all of Apple's marketing about worker conditions improvement and recycling is true or near true.
Disclaimer: I do believe walled gardens are evil and software patents should die.
Disclaimer: I do believe walled gardens are evil and software patents should die.
I generally assume that all marketing, regardless of who produced it, is a lie.
That's a good maxim to live by, but lies come in different flavors. Are they not improving conditions at all or just not in the amount they claim they are? Are they just throwing all the recycling material they get in the dumpster or they recycle less than claimed?
I expect the latter in both cases, which put them in a better ethical standpoint than many competitors, who are just as readily patent trigger happy and actually use minor labor and recycle nothing at all.
I expect the latter in both cases, which put them in a better ethical standpoint than many competitors, who are just as readily patent trigger happy and actually use minor labor and recycle nothing at all.
If you have Greasemonkey: https://lanthaps.com/static/noapple.user.js
Should be pretty easy to write a filter that removes all Apple-related news on HN. That would actually be a cool feature for a HN reader app.
I use a chrome extension called HackerNew[1] that lets you do this. Look for 'filters' on the top right of the page, once you have installed it
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lgoghlndihpmbbgmbp...
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lgoghlndihpmbbgmbp...
[deleted]
Do you really still expect quality content on HN nowadays? Even after that week where 5 articles along the lines of "I woke up at 5am and ate a slice of cold ham to start my metabolism" made it to the front page?
that is not true. i have been trying to get attention to a comment thread with Fred Wilson (usv) reg. AAPL and AirBnB, but in vain.
There's a serious lack of information in this post. No background, nothing. Is it the same kind of patent claim as the one that Samsung faced in the US?
Sorry about that. That is a popular Indian general news website, doesn't focus much on technology or legal news.
Here's the Reuters India link: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/apple-samsung-japan...
Here's the Reuters India link: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/apple-samsung-japan...
Very light on details, anyone got more info?
More text, yes, but not much more detail about the actual patents in question: "an Apple patent on technology that synchronizes music and videos between gadgets and servers."
Interesting URL it says Sept 1 for a story dated 31 aug. I wonder is it a conservative estimate of the date to take all time zones in consideration.
Probably not anything that interesting or considerate.
31 August is the time in Japan right now (as well as Europe and most of the US), so the dateline makes sense.
1 September is the date the story will appear in print, according to the article's footnote. I wouldn't be surprised if the software was focused on the actual newspaper when it was designed, and so the URL will correspond to the actual newspaper (in case of citations, etc.).
31 August is the time in Japan right now (as well as Europe and most of the US), so the dateline makes sense.
1 September is the date the story will appear in print, according to the article's footnote. I wouldn't be surprised if the software was focused on the actual newspaper when it was designed, and so the URL will correspond to the actual newspaper (in case of citations, etc.).
Plenty of sources via Google News: https://news.google.co.in/news/story?q=reuters+japan+apple+s...
apple wins in america. samsung wins in asia. coincidence?
If anything it could be a sign that the US trial was flawed, because believe me, the Japanese don't particularly like (or benefit from the success of) Korean companies.
Or maybe because different countries have different laws.
Much of patent law is governed by international treaties.
That's a very interesting reality that you live in.
Really? Is this because the same things were being tried in both courts? Or because the Japanese are racist? Or perhaps because the Japanese don't particularly like (or benefit from the success of) Apple?
If anything, your comment is nonsense.
If anything, your comment is nonsense.
The GP comment makes sense. There is a long standing resentment between Korea and Japan stemming from WWII excesses of Japanese army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule)
Not to mention they're competitors in most areas of trade... especially IT.
No, his comment really isn't nonsense. Japan and South Korea have an incredibly poor relationship.
> Japan and South Korea have an incredibly poor relationship
That's a overly simplistic. The relationship between Japan and Korea is very complicated. They have a long history together, and a lot of culture in common.
There are certain issues over which there is conflict, and certain classes of people within each country that beat the nationalist drums harder than average, but there's also a lot of mutual admiration, especially among the young. The antagonism won't die down anytime soon, but I'd say the trend is definitely downwards.
That's a overly simplistic. The relationship between Japan and Korea is very complicated. They have a long history together, and a lot of culture in common.
There are certain issues over which there is conflict, and certain classes of people within each country that beat the nationalist drums harder than average, but there's also a lot of mutual admiration, especially among the young. The antagonism won't die down anytime soon, but I'd say the trend is definitely downwards.
"Asia" isn't an homogeneous mass. And historically Japan haven't been overly fond of the Koreans and really have no reason to want to see them succeed.
In Japanese TV, Koreans are often portrayed in the same way as a US tv-show would portray a Mexican in a parodical way, i.e. primitive and under-developed.
I doubt the Japanese courts would hand them any free favours.
I doubt the Japanese courts would hand them any free favours.
Really? I didn't realise it was that bad.
Just like how American courts always side with Mexican companies against European ones! Wait, I think something's wrong with this picture.
Not exactly the same. Samsung's loss against Apple in the US was devastating. It wasn't a clear cut loss for Apple in South Korea. The South Korean court also found against Samsung and banned some of their products.
Well Samsung won also in UK, with the 'Samsung did not copy iPad' advert
A judge, or panel of judges, decides such cases, and I believe that the ones who try patent cases are, generally speaking, reasonably competent (and thus much less likely to make the incontrovertible errors seen in the recent US Apple-Samsung case).