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 532459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What were the Jurors thinking?
by JAlexoid on Sun 26th Aug 2012 17:51 UTC in reply to "What were the Jurors thinking?"
Member since:

Even though I agree on the $1bn "fine" and think that Samsung management should be smacked with a $1bn sack of money; I can't dismiss all the subtle hints that the utility patent part of the was largely skipped over.

Fair is fair, and it seems that in the complex case the jury went for the easy part(designs and trade dress) and skipped the technical one(utility patents).

Also, technically the jury compared the effect of the utility patents, not what should be compared - how they do it.(Utility patents don't cover what, it's the how)

PS: Where is your disgust that they did not find, a currently banned, GTab 10.1 to infringe on iPad design?

Reply Parent Score: 2