|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
I don't understand that as having happened.
In the interview, he says that what they
decided was to discuss other things and
come back to it, so as not to bog down,
and then he had his aha moment, so they
came to it first thing on the next day.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
| Can the foreman's media interviews be employed by Samsung's
lawyers to at least
have a mistrial for a start, or even
better, have their 'conclusions' thrown
out? Or this kind
of
stuff is inadmissible, no? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Here's the question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- for an appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
First - I agree that the jury blew it due to this dufus!
However - your comment about skipping over the points of controversy initially
don't ring true to me.
As an engineer - if I run into a portion of a problem that I don't know an
answer for yet, I'll divert to an area of the problem where the answers are
obvious - and implement the solutions to those areas. Often, by solving the
issues surrounding the main problem - insight is earned that helps unravel the
original knot.
This guy did the same thing, but using his Ah-Hah moment explanation applied to
everything else. A more appropriate description of the guy is he had a hammer
and made everything else look like a nail.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Ok, so the guy is a EE. I personally respect that designation out of hand.
HW/SW, I don't care. Course, the degree might be a bit dated. From personal
experience I can tell you that I am often the smartest person in the room when
it comes to my area of expertise. Depending on the time frame involved it is
difficult for anyone (including him) to bring up to speed those individuals who
do not have the experience. I use general economic / business factors to make
the point. Technical is a waste of time. This particular guy may not have had
any push back and thus over-powered the discussion. He made errors. That
imbalance combined with what I perceive is his genuine good faith effort
(however misguided) to solve the problem leads us here. Jury selection, imo, was
a problem. The fact that there was not a single person on the jury that owned an
iphone is a clue. Venue is a problem.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
Jury foreman, did he freak out as the lawyers skillfully showed, via the
"prior art" logic they proved Apple patent was not valid due to prior
art? Hmmm, where he was then, sitting there, a detailed geek himself (of
sorts), and he was finding that this Samsung logic was making him sick, where he
himself was shaking in his own boots (with a powerful lawyer showing his skill
in front of him)...as the same logical skill lawyer's case/thinking in another
court case (his own), maybe could invalidate the jury foreman's own software
patent?
Was that why the jury really only focused on the software in their ruling?
Hmmm, So?
Conclusion, the story, might be more obvious than anyone can see that this could
be the case? As, the jury foreman, it was HE who also had a complex software
patent himself, so maybe *he* looked at that whole case from his OWN SOFTWARE
PATENT defense point of view, and how he would defend his own patent from the
"prior art" that could invalidate it?
So, was it that he didn't want to even go there, rejecting prior art from the
get go, as it "offended his personal and physical constitution", so
took the other route maybe? One, that avoided review of prior art the way it
should be reviewed, meaning, a course of action in the case that he would prefer
that was used, if his software patent were in the case instead? Was *that* the
vision he had when he went home? So, prior art needed to be not considered?
For his own personal reasons?
Anyone even look at his patent now for any "prior art" prolems with
it, if so, maybe have USPTO review it?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
