|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Can no longer be ignored, even by the judge, I think. I look forward to the
interview after the mistrial is announced.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
I came here to link to this but seems i was beaten to it.
Surely this means a mistrial? A juror, the foreman no less
brings in his outside patent "expertise" to direct the rest
of the jury and this direction is plain wrong.
Not only does he say they disregarded the prior art because
of a lack of interoperability but that is also why they said
Apple did not infringe on Samsung's patents.
And the killer line
BBC: "Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we
might have ended up with a very different verdict?"
Foreman: "I think so."
Samsung's lawyers must be delighted. And apple's must be
desperately trying to shut him up.
DK
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
He says: "for me one of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading
the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between
Google executives and Samsung executives, where it was for a tablet and Google
was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel
and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was
getting too close to what Apple was doing."
So, his main evidence is regarding tablets, and then they let Samsung get away
with the tablets, while applying heavy damages on cell phones. Only logical.
He also claims the mistakes they made were a "transcription error".
Yeah, sure... Except it does not make any sense.
He also details his patently (sorry, just can't help doing it) wrong view of how
to verify prior art, and says how he guided the jury with his (faulty and biased
toward validating any patent) knowledge and experience.
He says Apple did not infringe on Samsung's email patent because "source
code is different". Well, source code was different in every patent they
talked about, and yet they found infringement in many of them. Samsung accused
feature's don't share the same code as Apple's (otherwise this case would be
about copyright). Hardware is different as well.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
Notice that the BBC handed the foreman an awful lot of rope and then carefully
made the full transcript available, not something that I remember seeing done
for any other interviews.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19425051
See you in court...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
