|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
But that's not what the foreman was discussing, as
the context makes clear. Note that I wrote that there
is no APPLE patent by that number.
Thank you for caring about any possible mistakes,
though. I always want to hear about them. I ran this
by a lawyer, by the way, and there is another one
linked to in the article. It's not a mistake.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
PJ is right in this instance, the 460 patent was an example of prior art
submitted by Samsung.
Now take a look at this:
Emily Chang: So the
initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about?
Vel
Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether
or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with
that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be
placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa.
Emily Chang: Um
hmm.
Vel Hogan: And that means that they're not interchangeable and that
just cha..., that changed everything right there.
It seems he was
hell bent on invalidating the prior art (460 patent) to the benefit of an Apple
patent which he didn't specify in his interview answer.
So the fact that there
is a 460 patent doesn't contradict PJ. The juror was talking about a diferent
patent which he would not let the 460 invalidate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Jury instructions - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
