|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Very poor jury selection by Samsung's attorneys, wouldn't you say? Unless the
jury foreman kept hidden the fact he had a patent issued to him, in which case
there would be an automatic mistrial declared.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
I was on grand jury once. Granted, it's not the same as a trial jury, but we had
a foreman that was intent that every indictment be accepted exactly as given by
the prosecutor. Wow. You should have seen the hate and criticism that showered
down on anyone that even dared ask the prosecution a question. Very few of us
had any the courage to ever vote "no" and even abstentions were
recorded as yayes. One day a bunch of people had to leave and we were down to
the minimum needed to indict. He gave me a threatening look that literally
terrorized me.
There was nothing I could do. The whole experience just rammed home to me how
corrupt the whole "justice" system is in the US.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
| Possibly lemmings? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
Based on personal experience, I'd recommend any potential juror to be suspicious
of anyone advocating for the foreman job. My experience is that the two times
that I was on a jury, that the self-selected candidate for the job, wanted to
push the jury and deliberations one way. I'd rather trust to random chance that
allow someone to self select again. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
| Clearly, this guy wants his patent to be "valuable". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
To be honest i don't think that would have mattered as much as you
think.
If you look at the various cases around the world where Apple have
tried this tactic they have mostly been tossed out albeit after a bit of toing
and froing.
As an outsider to America and its legal system (Scotland) i
think that the explanation is far simpler.
It's an American company going
after a foreign company in an American court. They couldn't lose. I suspect
Apple knew this. Others here have basically said the same thing.
Maybe
someone could look into similar court cases (i.e. American vs Foreigner) and see
if there is a pattern??
Maybe I am just being too cynical.
So Apple
go after their biggest competitor in the Smart Phone market for 2
reasons.
1. To try and slap them down hard. Obviously..
2. To get a
legal result against an Android device that they can then use as a big stick
against any other company using Android. (see Steve Jobs comments about going
thermonuclear on Android/Google). Taking on a foreign company in this way was
more likely to get them a result than trying to take on Google directly.
A
comment on the BBC new website reinforces this.
BBC Samsung to
Appeal
"It may also seek to use this ruling to block other devices
powered by Google's Android software that it believes replicate elements of its
user-interface, including current models by Samsung as well as other
firms."
Now this demonstrates what I hate about software patents
particularly in USA.
If someone develops a piece of code that allows a
particular function (bounce back/rubber band) for a particular OS (iOS) why
shouldn't someone else be able to duplicate that capability in another
OS(Android).
Especially if it can be shown that party 2 has not seen the
code for party 1s feature.
Oh and by the way I own a Samsung Galaxy S2
(which I chose for cost, battery life and functionailty ) and can easily tell
that and my wifes Galaxy S apart from the iPhones.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
| "We don't need no stinking law!" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
