|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
Same thing happened in the opening statements of SCO v. Novell. SCO made an
opening statement accusing Novell of various bad things, and it sounded really
good. Then Novell (Sterling Brennan) said that the jury needed to hear
"the rest of the story" before they made up their minds.
I suspect that this may be pretty standard for the side that gives the second
opening statement in jury trials...
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
How ridiculous.
Not that it's any worse than patenting round corners, but really? That's not
even exactly what the patent is either, it's some crazy multistep step
"process". That's because of course you can't patent "sending
photos by email", you can only patent a method of doing it (not that you
should be able to patent that either). Of course I suspect that won't stop
Samsung claiming it's a patent on "emailing photos" to the jury.
Using obfuscation and jury trials to make otherwise unpatentable things
patentable, yay!
How can anyone look at the patents being asserted on both sides and not think
"this is ridiculous"? There's *serious* time and resources - possibly
hundreds of millions by this point - being wasted here on a dispute about
whether Apple invented round corners and whether Samsung invented emailing
photos. Let alone the broader industry...
Samsung gets some slack because they didn't start this and there's really no
other way to defend yourself from patent attacks, but how even this level of
ridiculousness doesn't seem to trigger much public discontent with regards to
the patent system is hard to understand. Are people actually ok with this or do
they just not understand what's going on?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
