Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 14:42 UTC
Legal Fantastic work by The Verge. "Although Apple and Samsung did their best to present high-level narratives about copying and product development throughout the trial, the jury's work is far more complicated than simply asking if Samsung copied Apple. Instead, the 20-page verdict form presents around 700 extremely specific questions, divided into 33 groups. These questions exhaustively cover everything at issue in the trial, down to exact dollar amounts Samsung might owe for each of 28 devices accused of copying Apple intellectual property." I don't know just how much power a US jury has, but if I were them, I'd buy a tl;dr stamp and use it on every page of the verdict form. Samsung and Apple ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Thread beginning with comment 531935
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by elektrik
by elektrik on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 19:01 UTC
elektrik
Member since:
2006-04-18

WHEW! My Jury summons is for NEXT Month! I'm glad I dodged that bullet (of being on the Apple/Samsung jury)!!!!!!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by elektrik
by _txf_ on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 20:06 in reply to "Comment by elektrik"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

WHEW! My Jury summons is for NEXT Month! I'm glad I dodged that bullet (of being on the Apple/Samsung jury)!!!!!!!


You'd probably be excluded anyway. Legal teams from both sides removed Jurors with any technical knowledge...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by elektrik
by darknexus on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 22:25 in reply to "RE: Comment by elektrik"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You'd probably be excluded anyway. Legal teams from both sides removed Jurors with any technical knowledge...

Does anyone else who has actually read the U.S constitution realize just how ridiculous that is?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by elektrik
by quackalist on Fri 24th Aug 2012 05:13 in reply to "RE: Comment by elektrik"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Wouldn't surprise me as, from what I've surmised, this "case" wouldn't have existed without the chance to bamboozle a jury with rhetoric and if it doesn't succeed move on to another "case & jury" till it does.

Personally, think it a foolish "competition strategy" (apart from being morally bankrupt) as however "successful" short-term any effects are bound to unravel.

Reply Parent Score: 1