|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
| Just verified it. Page 18 of the Amended Jury
Verdict lists the 'non-existant' '460 patent. It is, indeed, one of
Samsung's which Apple was found *not* to infringe.
So, even if the juror's
statement *were* grounds for overturning that part of the verdict, it wouldn't
change the amount awarded to Apple. It would only require a re-trial of the
'460 patent to determine whether Samsung should get something, too. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: joef on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
| You certainly have an ax to grind! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
You are the sloppy one. Too eager to find fault. Here is
precisely what I
wrote:
This was regarding what the foreman in the video calls the
'460 patent, but there was no such Apple patent in the
case listed on the verdict form that I could find. I highlighted
it for you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
Here, another juror sets the context as definitely being
about the Apple
bounceback patent:
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that
Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating
heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple
said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the
same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin
Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the
beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so
he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated
that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing
there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before
Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on
faster. It was bogging us down." ...
"Once you determine that Samsung
violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different
[Samsung] products because it was all the same.
You shills need
to raise your game if you are going to attack me on every article with nonsense
like this. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
Let me clarify:
Sorry P.J. I didn't get to where you had the same
logical thought as I did before I posted the shared conclusion that the foreman
was not applying his logic consistently!
Anything else you may have read
into my response is all your own.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Did the jury noticed that the 460 was not a claim of Apple? Did
they notice that there Samsung had also some claims? :-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 460 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
How in the world can you use some kind of "Doublethink"
reasoning to turn this fool's misconception of prior art
against PJ? He said what he said and now everyone in the
World has heard it. Including all the other jurist and
Apple's attorneys must have been wincing at his every word.
Because I'll they knew he was tossing Brain iNfarction
pieces and parts at Apple's "iWin Anyway We Can Verdict"!
And that's exactly the point PJ was speaking to. He had
twisted and convoluted the whole process of deliberation
with the same Double Speak You're using against her!!!
Avoid the Noid by pointing the finger in two directions at
once like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz! lol.... Did you
by chance graduate from Apple's RDF School of Propaganda and
Mis-direction? ^_*[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
Are you the same "3rd year law student" shill that's making a fool of
himself attacking PJ at "The Verge"? Same tunnel vision, same single
mindedness, same lack of maturity, surely not a coincidence?
Steell
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
