|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
Kinda makes you think they want to take some really dumb patents to the Supreme
Court appeal to show just how stupid things have got...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
It's a DESIGN patent. In other words, there is no such thing as "prior
art", only stuff as "near-enough copy".
That's the point of a design patent - to prevent copying of technological
APPEARANCE.
This is where the "juror with a patent" screwed up - he seems to have
completely misunderstood this point.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
The judge would not allow them time to do it right.
Note that they took the time anyway on the tablet and the tablet was the one
device found not infringing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
| I guess a $150 billion company can't afford good lawyers. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
I was wondering about that one too. It would not surprise me
if
they thought they would never win a case in Apple's home
court,
and some more with a judge that seemed sympathetic to Apple.
They
may have done their best to enable a mistrial/appeal at the
end,
while putting every possible motion in so it can be used in
appeal/retrial.
Consider this: this court is only a few miles away from
Apple's HQ
(or so I have heard), and I would think that every single
juror
has a friend or family member who works for Apple or one of
their
local suppliers. Add to this that "jury of peers" here
largely
means "jury who understand almost nothing about
patents/technology" (except for the junk patent holder), and
you
can expect an unfavorable outcome for Samsung.
All in all, this may prove a Pyrrhic victory for Apple after
all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
