
Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes
several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict. "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement. Come on. This is farce." My
favourite inconsistency: a Samsung phone
with a keyboard, four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.
Member since:
2005-08-09
Apple "PR" turned out against them.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G
So this stupid trial is a huge Samsung Ad-campaign sponsored by Samsung =)
Edited 2012-08-26 15:49 UTC