Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:38 UTC
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 532518
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-01-14
While groklaw's authors certainly do have opinions, they at least provide unedited documentation of the entire trial, both for Apple and Samsung. That makes them a excellent source of information. In addition, the foreman seems to have been anything but unbiased. He ruled for Apple the way he would want the court to rule in his favor over his patent. He also had a lot of influence on the outcome according to other jurors. Now samsung bears some blame for not dismissing him. But they also have a right to be judged by a unbiased group, no matter how many jurors they would have to dismiss.