|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
I'm not referring to invalidating Apple's patents. read what I wrote. I'm
talking about invalidating the Jury's factual
findings.
After we debated that first patent -- what was
prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that
there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one,"
Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
...
The jury "skipped" determining what was prior art so they could
go faster.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
Exhibit
A:
As you may recall, Red Hat and Novell won, and in Texas too,
the jury finding that all the patents asserted were invalid.
And
Sony even did what RedHat did - they brought a functioning device in to prove
prior art. From the article:
It's rather dazzling, with a live demo
of a 1985 Amiga. Yes. The Amiga was still alive and usable for the demonstration
by Red Hat and Novell's expert to show prior art.
Yet, with the
comments some of the Jury Members are providing to the Media, it seems they
never even bothered with such questions as:
What evidence did Sony present
of their innocence? Of the invalidity of the Patents?
I didn't think I'd
ever find a Jury ruling as mind-boggling as the Jury in the Thomas-Rasset case
(not so much the finding of infringement, but the damages the Jury thought
reasonable). But I think I'll place this Jury above the Thomas-Raset Jury on
the "Shaking-Head Wow" factor.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
