decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I think that you do not understand the situation. | 871 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I think that you do not understand the situation.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
How long would it take you to read, understand and answer 700 questions? If the
questions were about a subject you were an expert in it would be quite a task,
as a layman in a legal environment it would be very daunting.
It could (should) have taken days if not weeks to complete properly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can we please quash this distortion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Did you pay attention to how much time the jury devoted to answering the
questions?

Even if their intent was to declare ll of the patents invalid, they did nit
spend
enoogh time on each question to come close to anything approximation
"thoughtful consideration".

The number on inconsistencies in their form demonstrates that they forswore
'thoughtful consideration', and voted to get it over with, ignoring both the
factsif tge case, and the law.


IOW, we have just seen US$50M thrown away.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Quash" is something you do in a courtroom.
Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT
In the real world, quashing is impossible. Squelching is what you do, instead.

But I'm not sure the details matter that much. I agree with PJ, wherever the
"we didn't need the instructions" remark came in, it's evidence that
the jury did not carefully consider the evidence.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Verdict was not unreasonable if...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT

...if you believe a patent is an iron-clad guarantee of original invention. Our society thinks inventors are geniuses, and their creations novel contributions. There lies the problem. While the myth of the genius inventor may at times hold true, there was no evidence of genius or original invention in this trial.

One would hope a company in the position Samsung found itself in could bring forth evidence of how poorly patents are vetted by USPO, and how much damage patents are doing to the economy, and how they are stifling innovation. However, I somehow doubt that would be allowed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )