|
| Authored by: dacii on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
| link [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
| Maybe only a deep pocket partner will do it. Hate to see them go. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Everybody knows that juries are awarding too
much and without reason sometimes. It's a known
issue, and people are trying to figure it out.
That's why some are saying patent trials should
be judge-only. I didn't follow this case, but
I see the judge not only overruled the jury, he
set it up so even if the appeals court overrules
him, the money they awarded can't be back on
the table. It has to be a new trial, with a new
jury. So he really thinks this jury got it wrong.
That's why the Oracle v Google ruling was so
amazing. Mr. Van Nest really is awe-inspiring.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Juries typically won't understand patents because they're intentionally
broad/vague/obfuscated - making any sense of your typical software patent is
unpleasant to say the least. You then get wild verdicts/damages awards based on
whatever theatrics/statements the lawyers have managed to sell to the jury
rather than the law and what's actually patented.
(Eg: what apple are trying to do in this trial).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
