Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 10:43 UTC
Legal "This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is still talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination. That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question." Together with the earlier reports, it's quite clear by now this jury messed up completely. If a device with a keyboard can be found to infringe iPhone design patents, then everything can. This verdict should be flushed down the crapper.
Permalink for comment 533938
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Incompetent, but ...
by Yehppael on Wed 5th Sep 2012 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Incompetent, but ..."
Member since:

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, though I doubt the jury faced the real decision.

Do you follow the laws and enforce a law that is morally wrong, or do you bend the laws to do something morally right?

The jury, it seems, just took the "let's get this done fast, I need to go shopping" route.

English is not my native language, so, I'm not sure what the proper term is, civil responsibility?

Reply Parent Score: 3