Judge Fay is working today

He just issued this opinion (which was joined by Judge Jordan).  This is the funny intro: "On July 23, 2009, Connie Strickland had been 'working on the railroad / All the live-long day.'" And here is the citation from the opinion: "A popular American folk song, the first published version of 'I’ve Been Working on the Railroad' seems to have been in a 1894 Princeton University songbook. See James J. Fuld, The Book of World-Famous Music 309 (Dover, 4th ed. 1996)."

SDFLA Federal Courthouses Closed on Monday

From the court website:

CLOSURE OF KEY WEST, MIAMI AND FORT LAUDERDALE FEDERAL COURTHOUSES ON MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012

During inclement weather periods, the safety of jurors, the public and Court personnel is always a priority. In the event of hazardous weather conditions, including hurricanes and tropical storms, the policy of the Southern District of Florida is to close federal courthouses when the local public schools within a particular county close. In light of the announced closures of public schools in Monroe, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the federal courthouses in Key West, Miami and Fort Lauderdale will be closed on Monday, August 27, 2012. Those courthouses will reopen when public schools in those counties reopen or until further order of Chief United States District Judge Federico A. Moreno. In the event of an emergency, information about the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida can be obtained from the following sources:
- The Court’s website: www.flsd.uscourts.gov
- Recorded telephone messages at each courthouse
- Broadcast messages sent to CM/ECF e-filers
- Television announcements
Please note that if the Court’s website is unavailable, the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts will post emergency messages on behalf of the Court on its website: www.uscourts.gov

Here is Judge Moreno's Administrative Order regarding closures, which explains that when schools in a particular county are closed, so too are the federal courthouses in that county.

Apple crushes Samsung

You've seen all the news already, but you should check out the Verge blog for the best coverage of the verdict and the case.  It's got really good stuff, including that the jury said that it didn't review the 100+ pages of instructions in coming to its verdict.  Who could blame them. 

I also love this shot of the damages calculation, which should be framed in the lawyer's office:

Here's the whole verdict form filled out.

I think the verdict also shows how important opening statements are...  The general consensus was that Apple really won the initial round and that Samsung held its own during the case and  gave a powerful closing. 

Apple/Samsung jury instructions and verdict form

They are impenetrable and 109 pages!  Here's the summary of claims page:

NO. 18 SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
I will now again summarize for you each side's contentions in this case. I will then tell you what each side must prove to win on each of its contentions.
As I previously explained, Apple seeks money damages from Samsung Electronics Company ("SEC"), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ("STA"), for allegedly infringing claim 19 of the '381 patent, claim 8 of the '915 patent, claim 50 of the '163 patent, and the D'889, D'087, D'677, and D'305 patents. Apple also argues that SEC actively induced SEA and STA to infringe the patents. Apple also contends that Samsung's infringement has been willful.
Samsung denies that it has infringed the asserted claims of Apple's patents and argues that, in addition, those claims are invalid. Invalidity is a defense to infringement.
Samsung has also brought claims against Apple for patent infringement. Samsung seeks money damages from Apple for allegedly infringing the '941, '516, '711, '460, and '893 patents by making, importing, using, selling and/or offering for sale Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod products that Samsung argues are covered by claims 10 and 15 of the '941 patent, claims 15 and 16 of the '516 patent, claim 9 of the '711 patent, claim 1 of the '460 patent, and claim 10 of the '893 patent. Samsung also contends that Apple's infringement has been willful.
Apple denies that it has infringed the claims asserted by Samsung and argues that the claims asserted by Samsung are invalid, and for the '516 and '941 patents, exhausted due to Samsung's license to Intel and also unenforceable. Invalidity, exhaustion, and unenforceability are defenses to infringement. Apple also contends that, by asserting its "declared essential" patents against Apple, Samsung has violated the antitrust laws and breached its contractual obligations to timely disclose and then license these patents on fair and reasonable terms.
For each party's patent infringement claims against the other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent holder's patents and whether those patents are valid. If you decide that any claim of either party's patents has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to the patent holder to compensate for the infringement. You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.
To resolve Apple's claims regarding Samsung's "declared essential" patents, you will need to make a finding as to whether Samsung violated the antitrust laws and whether Samsung breached its contractual obligations. If you decide that Samsung violated the antitrust laws or breached its contractual obligations, you will then need to decide what money damages to award to Apple.
Apple accuses Samsung of diluting Apple's Registered Trade Dress No. 3,470,983. This trade dress relates to the iPhone. Apple also accuses Samsung of diluting two unregistered trade dresses relating to the iPhone. Finally, Apple claims that Samsung has diluted and infringed its unregistered trade dress relating to the iPad.
For each of Apple's trade dress dilution and infringement claims, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the Apple trade dress is protectable (or valid). An asserted trade dress is only protectable if the trade dress design as a whole, as opposed to its individual features standing alone, is both distinctive and non-functional.
For Apple's trade dress dilution claims, the next issues you will decide are whether Apple's trade dress was famous before Samsung started selling its accused products, and whether Samsung's accused products are likely to cause dilution of the asserted Apple trade dresses by impairing their distinctiveness.
Apple's trade dress infringement claim will require you to resolve different issues. You will need to determine whether Apple's trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before Samsung started selling its accused products, and whether Samsung's accused products are likely to cause confusion about the source of Samsung's goods.
If you decide that any Apple trade dress is both protectable and has been infringed or willfully diluted by Samsung, you will then need to decide the money damages to be awarded to Apple.
Samsung denies that it has infringed or diluted any Apple trade dress and argues that each asserted trade dress is not protectable. If a trade dress is not protectable, that is a defense to infringement and dilution.

Oy.  Here is the entire set of instructions:

Apple vs. Samsung Jury Instructions



The 22-page verdict form seems even worse.  Here's one page:

I feel for this jury.  Anyway, stay dry this weekend.  See you Monday.

Student who threatened Obama on Facebook gets probation

Curt Anderson has the details of the sentencing before Judge Cooke:

A 21-year-old college student and musician was sentenced Wednesday to three years' probation for posting threats against President Barack Obama on Facebook, a case a federal judge said underscored the perils of impulsive Internet use.
In addition to the probation, which includes four months' home confinement, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ordered Joaquin Serrapio to write a new Facebook post explaining how messages can have permanent dire consequences.
"I want people to speak out. I want us to have dialogue about issues. But I think some of our young people don't realize that cyberspace is forever," Cooke said after sentencing Serrapio. "When you write something in cyberspace, you are writing it for the world."

I'm happy Judge Cooke didn't put him in jail, but house arrest and 3 years of probation seems like a lot to me.  I do like the idea of requiring him to write something on Facebook.

Thoughts?

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/22/4748518/obama-facebook-threat-gets-fla.html#storylink=cpy