|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
Surely if, as you say, there is a higher burden of proof,
then a hung jury is in and of itself indicative of not
enough proof. So Google should get a not-guilty verdict?
Says something about the language of the patent that it
can't be interpreted clearly enough for a jury to find a
party guilty of infringement on each and every claim in the
patented method. So if a jury can't understand it, how is it
advancing humanity in exchange for the monopolistic rights
conferred on it by being a patent. Surely, the patent is
supposed to "disclose" the invention....
I know that the legalese surrounding patents appears these
days to be more focussed on hiding the invention, just so
that it gives the lawyers more wiggle room in the courts....
at least that's the way it looks from here....
YellowShed
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
Except that
(a) Mitchell has been pretty successfully impeached
(b) Terrence Parr got Mitchell to change his stand and agree with Terrence.
So imho, the jury should just ignore Mitchell :-) Certainly attach far less
weight to him ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- tip the scales - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
|
|
|
|