|
Authored by: soronlin on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
Good point there. So that's him admitting that they used evidence that was not
given in the courtroom, and a theory of prior art that was not explained to
them.
That invalidates every one of their decisions on validity. If Samsung cannot
take this to the judge for an immediate retrial or a JMOL overturning every
finding of validity, there is no justice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
I don't know whether he did independent research or not but I believe he
indicated he felt a need to "defend" Apple's patents. I believe this
was from excerpt(s) shown for one or more News Picks. It sounded like he was
actively trying to come up with a theory of why the patents weren't invalidated
by prior art. It's as if he thought he was part of Apple's legal team rather
than a "mere" juror in this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|