|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
As a question...
Was the jury foreman of a pro-software patent mindset (pro-patent in tech in
general), and was he making his opinion a clear/loud point, was there a hidden
agenda?
If the judge misses that possibility, at this point, then we need ot ask if we
really do have a problem with the judiciary?
Did this guy use this jury, that he took over, to promote "his" ideas
and did he lead the jury along "his" view of the case, from
"his" PRO-SOFTWARE PATENT (no chance of prior art) POINT OF VIEW, and
that view, was it a view that in someone's mind, a view that someone saw as
needing to be sent to the world of those who would challenge software patents
issued by the USPTO? Was this a shot fired to affect everyone else, not just
Samsung, via a message, that software patent protecting was to be protected by
huge penalty (not logical loss of actual earnings as was part of the jury
instructions)? Is that is why he didn't follow the jury instructions, he
certainly was a detailed person who listened to them, and heard them loud and
clear, when they were read in the courtroom... but, was it the case that he
wanted something else in the case to happen... so, he guided the jury to
disregard the instructions, and maybe even not consider the jury instructions at
all? Was it the desire instead that the jury, to instead follow his
"knowledgable lead" to punish, as an example, simply for the sake of
making and example, period?
Hmmm, I wonder if there is any prior art to his "software patent" and
that is why he guided the jury away from that subject, as his own patent might
be vulnerable to a prior art challenge..., and wanted the case law to not look
at prior art (of course was helped by the judge that didn't allow a bunch of
Samsung's prior art into evidence)?
Agenda anyone?
Questions need to be asked.
Is this guy's patent a valid patent?
Was he afraid during the course of the case, in seeing his patent challenged in
the same way, and maybe invaliated?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
| definition
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
