|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
| Nothin beats home cookin! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
The jury ruled that Apple can steal anything they want, including 2000 year old
designs, and if anyone even breathes in Apple's direction, Apple is entitled to
zillions of dollars in damages.
So much for the jury system. It's as corrupt as the judges and legislators.
The men and women on that jury should be ashamed of themselves. Well, at least
they shot themselves in the foot, or maybe they jurors LIKE being owned by
Apple.
Anyway, Samsung should have plenty of ammunition for an appeal after the
disgraceful way Judge Koh acted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
I'm not in the jury, and haven't seen the whole history, but Apple has a point
here, if true. The patents supposedly are implemented by hardware Apple bought
from Intel. that would be patent exhaustion. which is what the jury ruled.
If you're willing to look at it all objectively. If true, and the patents are
only violated because of Intel parts and Intel has licensed the patents, I would
want the jury to return no infringement.
I'm not saying it's true, but that is what Apple argued.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Apple bought the chip from Intel, the chip uses the patented tech, but Intel
have a patent license from Samsung. Under patent exhaustion, Apple cannot be
forced to pay a second time. Samsung argued that the chip was sold in China not
the USA, so they should still be paid in the USA. This is likely one of the
reasonable decisions from the jury.
-Jeremy[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
