|
|
|
| Authored by: haphazard on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
Sweet result. 9 lines of code.
And even that's
somewhat tenuous, considering that the question of fair use wasn't
decided.---
"I'm too sexy for my code." -Awk Sed Fred
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
I think they showed a pretty decent understanding of the patents and the
technical issues, based on the questions they asked during deliberations. It
was certainly not a case of "we can't figure this out, so I guess we find
for the defense". They seem to have delved pretty deeply into the claims
and the evidence, and made an informed decision.
Now I grant that there are things they *didn't* know, like the fact that if
Oracle's proffered interpretation had stood, the patent would have had years of
prior art, and would be completely invalid. And, of course, the fact that one
of the patents is currently considered invalid by the PTO. But even without
that knowledge or insight, they seemed to get close enough to the core issues to
make the right decisions for the right reasons. My hat's off to them.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
As per report majority of question were from jury foreman. So we can assume that
rest of the jury clearly understood.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
