|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
No he said the prior art was thrown out because the Apple
software couldn't run on any of the prior art that was
presented in the trial as evidence. At least that is how I
read it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
"Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0"
How is that even possible? Adding more functionality (a wireless radio chip)
means zero damages when a WiFi only version incurs a charge? I'm starting to
think this verdict, and the numerous "WHAT?!" moments it raises when
the jurors speak out, is the best news Samsung could hope for short of having
won the case with prejudice.
The foreman has patent experience? Oh that's handy, let's look at that shall we?
Oh he has a patent for recording streaming media! Of course that's new, I've
never heard of anything doing that before his patent like TechSmith's Camtasia,
the freeware Camstudio (or RoboDemo which it came from). OK the person leading
the jury has experience of patents in the way that Apple has patented slide to
unlock and a grid of icons (all my colour screen Nokia phones and ancient HP
Jornado PDA) despite prior art there too.
As much as I love Android, Samsung you goofed with the original Galaxy S line
being so close in look. You bargained on prior art helping you and it may in the
long run but this jury is helping you by being so incompetent that the number of
gasps per line read (GPLR) is off the chart.
(How can that guy have a patent on recording streaming video? Unbelievable.)
Something that's just came to me while reading my preview back.. Nokia slider
phones have all been "slide to unlock". Granted the method is hardware
but is it not the same thing? A sliding motion is performed to unlock the phone
for use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Figured Groklaw would pick up on this.
Doesn't make sense to me either. The whole thing is
confusing. The jury foreman sounds like he doesn't know what
the hell he is talking about.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
That proves Samsung didn't infringe!
The rom from the Samsung won't run in an iphone, and the app won't run on IOS
either, so that proves they couldn't have infringed!!! ;-)
Dave[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
