|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
| This one [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
It boggles the mind. I guess "mind" is something no one in the jury
room had.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
Oh, I don't know. I'd say that facebook icon is almost
identical![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
| Good point. Truly apalling! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
> None of them look even close to the iPhone
> other than the international version.
Gotta use American Patents to squash free trade.
Notice how the verdict form ticked off both
SEC & STA as equals. No chance to fob off the
American subsidiary as errant, the mothership has to go down too.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
They didn't have enough time.
They focused on the tablets, and got enough evidence in the record that the jury
couldn't just blindly check off the infringed box.
They didn't have enough time left for evidence on the phones, so the jury was
able to blindly check off the infringed box on most of the phones.
This should be one of Samsung's arguments for mis-trial.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
They didn't find it infringing because the phone was shaped
like an iPhone. The patents they determined it infringed
upon were software user interface patents. Specifically the
rubberbanding when scrolling to the end of the list (381
patent,) double-tap to zoom¢er (163 patent) and rounded
icons on a black background (D'305.)
I don't buy that any of those patents are truly innovations
that should be given a monopoly by the government a la the
patent system. However, it's not particularly crazy or
unclear how the jury determined the patents to be infringed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
