|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
More evidence that PJ isn't giving us the same quality of analysis that we've
come to expect through the SCO saga. Apple wasn't the only one with patent
claims in this case. To have missed that the '460 patent is one of Samsungs,
decide the juror really meant a different patent, and then jump on him for
apparently misunderstanding something requires *several* leaps of faith that
could be avoided just by looking for a patent involved in the case that ends in
460.
Sloppy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- My Goodness! - Authored by: joef on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Again. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- I'd appreciate if you didn't read more in my statement then I intended - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Shills, please raise yer game. :) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- 460 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- 460 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- This Jury Foreman's Massive Brain iNfarction... isn't PJ's fault! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Sorry P.J. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
|
|
|
|