|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
| Because it was to punish [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
Typo in the above should say
Galaxy S II (i9100)....0
rather than i9000.
Also there were no damages awarded against the Galaxy Ace
The jury found that all three of the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S
(i9000) and Galaxy S II (i9100) infringed a number of Apple
patents so why award $0 for each?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Crazy jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- Maybe not that crazy after all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
Eight phones listed, six with non-zero damges,
four of those end in "8", the other two in "6"
Bug/feature in the damages calculation algorithm?
Or time to get my medication adjusted?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
At some point ordinary people are not going to be able
to render a reasonable verdict if the instructions are
this complicated. For a moment, assume that they also
new it was a farce, felt that they were being unreasonably
burdened by a fight that was moot to them, and by
following the instructions to the letter would have kept
them in court for 6 months arguing over things they may
not understand. Sure, the implications are profound given
the outcome but how much of your life are you willing to
give up due to bad patent law implementation and practice?
All it took was a fanboi foreman and the rest of the
ducks lined right up. I'm not sure I blame them a bit.
Let the SCOTUS and congress figure this out, they are
the ones that get paid to do these things.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Nope - Authored by: cjk fossman on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
- Yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:31 AM EDT |
It was because for those models Samsung had to put in a lot of effort to hide
the fact that it was a copy.
Will an appeals court take into account statements made by the jurors after the
trial?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
Because those damages are not just about the design patent. Apple had 11 (I
think) patents in this trial...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
They had to be following some predetermined amount in order to
calculate these so quickly. What was their basis for coming
up with the amounts?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
