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.
Thread beginning with comment 532296
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lies, Lies, Lies
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:19 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

"And yet, we were told that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard."

The documents regarding the f700 were not admitted as prior art because Samsung failed to enter them until six months into the trial.

Can we not make up propaganda on an already heated topic.

Edited 2012-08-25 19:19 UTC

Reply Score: -2

RE: Lies, Lies, Lies
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:23 in reply to "Lies, Lies, Lies"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I was referring to people here in the comments and in other articles (e.g. The Verge).

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[2]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:40 in reply to "RE: Lies, Lies, Lies"
v RE[2]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by henderson101 on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:50 in reply to "RE: Lies, Lies, Lies"