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 532347
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nationalism ?
by saso on Sun 26th Aug 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
Member since:

Has it occured to anyone that this decision could be motivated by some sort of nationalism?

It has, and most likely is. Apple is constantly in the news lately viewed positively as an innovative American company, while Samsung is this Asian newcomer who is frequently ridiculed as producing knock-off products. The jurors were no doubt aware of this and as a consequence were most likely heavily biased. As evidenced by the latest released comments from the jurors, Samsung was assumed to be guilty practically from day one, thus invalidating one of the core principles of fair justice (impartiality).

Though maybe not practical in this case, it would be very interesting to see if jurors had arrived at the same conclusion had none of them been present at the court hearings themselves and instead worked from court transcripts (the information content is the same as what is said in a court room, save for the drama) and the materials identifying the parties had been anonymized (referring rather to parties "A" and "B" rather than "Apple" and "Samsung").

Edited 2012-08-26 01:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 10