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 532545
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

You believe that with all of the evidence presented in the last few days by Groklaw and other news sources which interviewed the jurors that they were not in the least bit biased? You believe they are less so than 'experts' in the field? You believe that they and they alone have no biases and therefore you defer to their wisdom?

Seriously?

Reply Parent Score: 3