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.
E-mail Print r 10   42 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 532293
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So?
by Nelson on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:51 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

The damages have not been awarded yet. Samsung will likely win small victories as the Jury is prone to error in a verdict this complex. Plus, the Judge can overrule the Jury in instances where they did not understand the minutia of the law.

The number could be revised slightly downward, and I expect it to..but

Samsung as also found to have willfully infringed which opens the door to up to a tripling of damages.

Reply Score: 2