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 532563
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by OSbunny
by OSbunny on Mon 27th Aug 2012 10:32 UTC
OSbunny
Member since:
2009-05-23

The way I look at this is that it is sort of like protectionism. If America wants to employ protectionism to prevent competition from foreign companies then it has that right. The good thing is that the world has now changed and there are other large markets out there so competition won't just die. For example the Chinese market is set to become the world's largest mobile phone market. Protectionism of this sort just means that the US falls behind. That is all.

Reply Score: 3