|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT |
No honest human can keep valid Apple touch patents. No way
they don't see the prior art, no way they honestly believe
that Apple invented the world.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- And yet here we are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Trade Dress - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
According to Guardian
interview with Velvin Hogan (foreman) he is
quoted as saying
We wanted to make sure it [damages] was
sufficiently high
to be
painful, but not unreasonable. The Jury
Instruction 35
says:You should keep in mind that
the
damages you award are
meant
to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an
infringer.
Are these statements compatible or did the
Jury
ignore/miss it in the rush?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
"What's the point of having a trial?" Quinn said, his voice
rising. "What's the point?" and Judge Koh responds, "Don't
make me sanction you"! .....and it has been all a runaway
train going downhill ever since!
A quite despicable miscarriage of justice, I'd say!
"To railroad" means to rig a situation such that events can
only play out in a particular manner, or to a particular
end. When applied to a trial, it means to manipulate the
judicial system such that a defendant is virtually
guaranteed a conviction. The metaphor derives from the
nature of a railroad track, which does not offer a train the
ability to choose its path of travel.
"The lead prosecutor railroaded Eddy into a first-degree
murder conviction: she relied heavily on the testimony of
unqualified experts."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- They are quite proud... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- They are quite proud... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
1.8 minutes per question for 700 questions = 21 hours. No way they debated the
merits of the cases at all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
No, it was the goodie baskets under the deliberation tables that swung the vote
- the free Apple products for everyone on the jury...
They were hidden from the judge and bailifs, but we all know they were there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
Another quote from the foreman:
"...we threw some things out that didn’t need to be considered"
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Based on what???
You had a set number of questions that you were supposed to individually answer,
based on weighing the evidence (and ONLY the evidence, not you past experience
as a patent holder) and the LAW.
On what grounds did you reach the conclusion there there "things that
didn't need to be considered"?
Two questions:
1) Runaway jury?
2) Sufficient evidence in all these revelations to constitute juror
misconduct?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
Pretty obviously.
I wonder if any of the jurors, having now presumably found that Samsung's
evidence of Sony prior are was disallowed, are having second thoughts. Or even
first thoughts.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
Anyone notice the date the jury foreman's patent was published? Yeah..April
fools! lol
This whole thing is a joke.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
This reduction happened before the final verdict announcement came from the
court. Every other news organization reported it as such.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
the problem is that some entities never learn from history
appl is going all the way down sco route , remember sco vs linux ? apple did not
learn from the sco lesson they're doing it again !!
the same way sco went after linux vendors and users , apple is dreaming about
going after the android vendors and users , classic a la sco , these tactics by
apple are not only dumb it's also a sure way for apple to shoot itself in the
foot.
market share fiqures are there for all to see , android has eaten off much of
apple os market share , the eroding market share news are certainly worrying for
apple's management.
the lesson here to learn is about technical superiority not legal gimmicks , let
the best os win on technical merits and consumer opinion not who has better
lawyers !
finally , apple will be very mitaken in underestimating consumers reaction in
case it goes haywire sco style.
dsg[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
A small number of jurors can effectively dominate a jury pool. Each juror is
supposed to decide for themselves, but the dynamics of the jury room lend itself
to pressuring outliers.
I think it was Lana Guinier (a Clinton potential supreme court nominee) who was
explaining how a small subset of a larger group could actually dominate the
group's decisions. The logic went something like get everyone in the group to
vote as a block for the choice of the majority. So, in a group of nine, 5 votes
were needed for a decision. The twist is, if you get a group of 5 to agree to
block vote based on majority within the group of 5, then a block of three can
swing the block of 5 effectively a group of 3 makes the decisions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:25 AM EDT |
I suppose about eight years ago, I bought three Motorola cordless phones. Each
phone is physically identical.
They are rectangular with rounded corners on the four sides. The top and bottom
have sylistic curvatures to make for rounding all the way.
I should mention the round button on the front.
Does Google or its attorneys know they, (Motorola), designed and marketed such a
product about maybe eight years ago.
Here are the numbers:
Model: L301
Other number: VT 091201010123G
If they don't have one of these products laying around to get hands on, and
would like to have hands on, I could arrange to send one of mine.
~
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ShawnX on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
Could an interested party have petitioned the court against BOTH parties? I know
you can become an interested party to the defence or prosecution but what if you
were against both? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
Maybe the foreman was looking at this case not thru the eyes of Apple or
Samsung, but as a president to protect his own patent (software patent).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
Thanks for God that Karl Benz heirs the one who made the first car on 4 wheels
with internal combustion engine in 1886
won't take action against GM, Ford and
others because they're making cars with 4 wheels and ICE too, else the US should
sell out everything though might not be enough to compensate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
This case reminds me of medical malpractice cases. A jury of "peers,"
that have no clue about the medical aspects of a trial, get to decide things,
and often award outlandlish amounts for "pain and suffering".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
