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 532415
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What were the Jurors thinking?
by porcel on Sun 26th Aug 2012 14:39 UTC in reply to "What were the Jurors thinking?"
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

What exactly does your post add to the conversation?

Are the jurors going to come out and admit openly that they are inherently biased against Apple, because one is an American company and the other a Korean one?

Are they going to admit that they have no understanding of technology?

Trade dress patents, really? Is that what the technology world has come down to?

Only thing this has proven is that Apple and Microsoft are not able to compete on a leveled playing field.

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

I am done with this pathetic debate and the iClueless fashionistas.

Edited 2012-08-26 14:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Oh give it the hell up already! Here we are, in the middle of a conversation about Apple VS Samsung, and what do we get? A butthurt FOSS zealot screaming about "Teh ebil M$"!

Dude where have you been for the past half a fricking decade? MSFT is the new IBM, with a market that is flatline and gonna stay that way, hence why we have Ballmer throwing the Hail Mary with Win 8 "LOL I Iz A Cellphone LOL" play, yet here you are STILL whining like its 1997! Give it up Sparky, you didn't have a product the people wanted,and on the desktop you STILL don't, so they went elsewhere simple as that. I'll even hand you a link from a Red hat dev that says the Linux desktop is "suckage" and "in its death throes" for you to ponder..

https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfRzNe

Now back to the ACTUAL topic...welcome to the future, the land of the lawyers. This is what happens when you have an out of control patent office that will let you patent anything! Everyone in IT knows we stand on the shoulders of giants only now we have tollbooths everywhere. I mean screens with bezels? Really? Wanna know why Asia is gonna kick the USA's behind this is it in a nutshell, they can build on previous ideas without tapdancing through a legal minefield to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

Don't kid yourself. Sure, MS did play dirty (who wouldn't, in such position?), but they were also simply the most sensible choice out of all not-so-great ones ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221 ); and network effects mean that we naturally gravitated to one dominant market player.

Reply Parent Score: 2