Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:38 UTC
Legal 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.
Permalink for comment 532507
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Groklaw isn't exactly unbiased or objective.
by MollyC on Mon 27th Aug 2012 00:38 UTC
Member since:

It should be noted that Groklaw, Thom, other tech "savvy" geeks, are not unbiased and had a rooting objective in this matter. The jurors (if they were properly screened) did not have a rooting interest.

Therefore the jurors' opinion would be based on objective analysis while the tech geek peanut gallery opinions are generally not.

Personally, I don't trust jury decisions in technical matters and would prefer a panel of experts (though it would be harder to find a pool of objective experts than a pool of objective laypersons) or a group of philosopher kings. ;) But trashing the jurors for "inconsistencies" when they are objective and the critics are not seems wrong.

Reply Score: 0