|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
I will note his patent is post Tivo and an obvious extension of existing
technology at the time.
Cough. Patent Troll as Jury Foreman?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
Actually yes it is.
Mouse the Lucky Dog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
because we had hard time believing there was no prior art,
that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could
go on faster. It was bogging us down.
The jury didn't discuss prior art because it was bogging them
down. Failing to discuss prior art. Was there any
instructions on prior art? Seems like Apple patents will be
declared invalid in appeals since prior art exists in most of
their patents. Judgement overturned!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: miltonw on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Velvin Hogan gave "testimony" to the other jurors that had a significant impact
on their decisions.
- He was not established as an "expert
witness",
- He was not under oath and
- Samsung was
not given the opportunity to cross examine him.
Can there be
a more egregious example of a corrupted jury?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Except you can't instruct a jury to discount *personal* *experience*. What am I
supposed to do if, as a scientist, I observe a lawyer presenting garbage to me
as evidence? Do I accept that rubbish as fact, or do I tell the jury that the
lawyer was talking out of his backside?
The problem here, as I see it, was the juror had TECHNOLOGY patents, and the
trial was about DESIGN patents. They aren't the same thing as all.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
And the foreman's patent is frankly nearly as bad as most of the ones Apple seem
to have.... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
| No its not. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Hogan's patent seems to be for a device like Tivo or a media center pc, applied
for and granted several years after that kind of devices have been on the
market. So his actions were completely consistent with Apple's.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Read this summary to get an idea of how hard it is to overturn a jury based on
the conduct of the jury during deliberations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_v._United_States[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
It sounds to me like the foreman explained the prior art search during the
patent application and used that to essentially say that if the patent was
granted then there was not prior art. Samsung was allowed very few prior art
submissions so I could see the other jurors concluding that despite these
patents seeming very obvious they must have been original.
JT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
