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 534305
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Incompetent, but ...
by ephracis on Fri 7th Sep 2012 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Incompetent, but ..."
ephracis
Member since:
2007-09-23

The feeling I get from your posts is that you are emotionally invested in the companies involved here, and you have a hard time believing that Thom is not, based on his (many) previous bashings of the actions of Apple.

I, however, don't believe that Thom is emotionally invested in "anti-Apple", Samsung or Android. I believe that Thom is emotionally invested in the technology and the future of tinkering geeks. In Thom's view the actions of Apple may have been in contrast to what he views as a bright and promising future. However, that does not have to lead to him being emotionally invested in anything or everything "anti-Apple". (We all know Thom owns many Apple devices and thus can at least agree to fund the company.)

The reason why I want to point this out is because I believe that many of us here share that trait with Thom. We are not emotionally invested with any specific company, but instead cherish a possible future of our field of interest, a future of ourselves as individuals, and a future of the society that we live in. The key here is that we may sometime see a certain set of companies either encourage that future which we deem good (or bad) and another set (which may or may not overlap) of companies which prevents it. The end result is that we bash the actions of one set of companies and praises another.

TL;DR:
I think Thom (and many other geeks here) is (often) pissed off at what he believes are the potential consequences of the actions that Apple has made, not necessarily Apple itself.

Reply Parent Score: 3