Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 545715
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
There is no evidence the Foreman lied. At all.
Samsung's own incompetence caused this. They didn't do their due diligence during the selection process.
I just find it extremely funny how delusional some people were about Samsung's prospects during this entire trial. I lied, some people still are delusional.
Apple has a much better chance of winning injunctions on appeal than Samsung does of winning an appeal.
The real perversion of justice is how Samsung, despite being found to infringe, willfully, and violate Apple's trade dress, was not handed injunctions across all the infringing devices.
A billion dollars doesn't change the fact that they illegally leveraged Apple's technology and trade dress to gain a foothold in the market which has netted them way more.
There is absolutely no way that will stand in an appeals court. I can imagine Samsung being granted sweeping injunctions which can easily be extended to apply to other devices.
Samsung right now, would be FOOLISH to not be frantically changing what they've been deemed to infringe. There really is little gain in playing these little stupid lawyer games (Jury Foreman was biased!!).