Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

No patents invalid? Really? | 289 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

No patents invalid? Really?

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT

Umm, it depends on the question that the jury was being asked.
Were they asked to decide if the patent claims were valid (new, novel, not
obvious, not functional, etc)?
or were they asked to decide if Samsung violated the patent claims?

The device between this case and Oracle/google was that the judge's instructions
were quite clear and understood/followed by the jury, the jury was to make their
judgement as if the copyright was valid, and not to consider whether or not the
copyright was valid.

It does not appear that the Samsung/Apple jury instructions were actually
followed by the jurors. I think a lot of this was the result of the different
judges in the two cases.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )