Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 10:43 UTC
Legal "This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is still talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination. That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question." Together with the earlier reports, it's quite clear by now this jury messed up completely. If a device with a keyboard can be found to infringe iPhone design patents, then everything can. This verdict should be flushed down the crapper.
Thread beginning with comment 533938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Incompetent, but ...
by Yehppael on Wed 5th Sep 2012 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Incompetent, but ..."
Yehppael
Member since:
2012-08-01

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, though I doubt the jury faced the real decision.

Do you follow the laws and enforce a law that is morally wrong, or do you bend the laws to do something morally right?

The jury, it seems, just took the "let's get this done fast, I need to go shopping" route.

English is not my native language, so, I'm not sure what the proper term is, civil responsibility?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Incompetent, but ...
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Sep 2012 12:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Incompetent, but ..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, though I doubt the jury faced the real decision.

Do you follow the laws and enforce a law that is morally wrong, or do you bend the laws to do something morally right?

The jury, it seems, just took the "let's get this done fast, I need to go shopping" route.

English is not my native language, so, I'm not sure what the proper term is, civil responsibility?


I think it's fair to say that the foreman thought he was doing his duty. But in the US, they have a very strange idea of duty. It is the duty of the individual to sacrifice their freedom for people richer than they, because it's good for the economy and "jobs".

Capitalism: it's the new feudalism.

Reply Parent Score: 13

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

That's not it at all.

We do love our capitalism here, but that's not what's going on here. This is vigilante sh** from one moron, and apathy from the rest.

The foreman was looking out for his own interests. The foreman holds a shaky patent, and it was his intention to make sure it would be enforceable. Nothing more nothing less.

He correctly understood that the patent system would have melted threatening his shaky patent if they had done the correct thing, and everyone else didn't care because it wouldn't affect them and went along with him.

Reply Parent Score: 2