|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT |
Yet, the jury found only the iPhone 3G, an obsolete device, was infringed. Not
the iPhone 4 or the iPad. Try again troll.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
A jury not of my peers wanted to get home for beers.
"Samsung that sounds foreign, Apple that's as American as apple pie."
"This looks easy, now let's run through this list, this isn't hard if we
all work together."
"See all done. Let's hand it in and were outta here for the weekend."
"Oh heck, a couple of contradictions."
"Let's get this fixed, there we go, you do the math and this time we really
are outta here."
"Quick out the back way!"
"Respect", respect has to be earned.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
Please send in the clowns. The wicked witch is dead, By the way take the
pig-nosed lady and all the other Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey freaks.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:33 AM EDT |
Pamela Jones has always stated: Respect the Jury.
And I respect this jury's decision.
It was SO OBVIOUS that Samsung copied Apple.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
I keep thinking of how this compares to juries I have served on.
In one case, it was a very minor criminal case and I was greatly edified by my
fellow jurors. We spent 2 full days deliberating on a ase that took 3 days to
present including the jury selection. The jurors went to great lengths to
follow the instructions of the judge. It was clear that several jurors were
voting for a verdict that was somewhat distasteful to them precisely because
they had a person's liberty in their hands and felt compelled to follow the law.
That case did a lot to strengthen my respect for the jury system.
I also served on a civil case that went the other way. In my view, the majority
of the jurors decided they did not like the defendant and his lawyer. At least
one juror went along because he wanted to go home.
I was not in this jury room. I know that part of the process is deciding on how
much weight to give the pieces of evidence, since a juror is suposed to be a
trier of facts and is allowed to discard evidence deemed not credible. Thus I
don't know how much fit under the "I don't believe that witness"
category. I
was pleased to see that there was at least some differentiation on results
based on products, so it was not simply voting for their favorite side.
However it does not feel like they took their charges seriously.
(Full disclosure note: My basic sympathies are with Apple, which puts me in a
minority for Groklaw. I think they effectively created several new markets and
should have some rights to limited monopolies. The details of how limited is
a technical question with lots of complexities that I do not claim to
understand. Nevertheless I think Samsung deserved more careful deliberation
than they got.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
> If GM copied a Ferrari or Porche 911 design of their car,
> Ferrari or Porche would certainly win a design patent
> lawsuit.
Hello. I see you have no idea what you're talking about, since neither the
Automotive or Fashion industries are allowed design patents in the USA.
As a scientist, I put it to you that since there are very profitable and
innovative industries that do not have design patents that perhaps the
hypothesis that patents are good for industry is wrong. In fact, I'll go one
further and say that since the hypothesis that patents are good HAS NOT BEEN
TESTED, that all patents should be systematically abolished. After a time we
can assess the effect of not having patents vs having them in today's economy,
and either live happily ever after, or reinstate whatever crap laws we want.
There is not a logically thinking individual alive that can defend the aged
concept of patents and artificial scarcity -- No arguments in favor of patents
have any backing whatsoever.
Evidence. We need some. Abolish patents or restrict the world's innovation
based on unproven assumptions.
You pick some rather strange people to trust.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
