decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I think you Misunderstood what 'Prior Art' PJ's referring to! | 149 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Please explain
Authored by: stegu on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
Please explain your point. I fail to
follow your train of thought here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think you Misunderstood what 'Prior Art' PJ's referring to!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
In Apple vs Samsung case, the jurist were speaking of that
particular Question on the Jury Form, in putting it aside.
Of course you'd assume they went back to it naturally.

So what she's really explaining is that the Foreman had
apparently used his own Prior Patent experience in
convincing fellow jurists that SAMSUNG's Prior Art Evidence
invalidated it, because (however convoluted this reasoning
is) it couldn't run on Apple's system and vice versa.

Meaning; You're totally off point on this!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge in Oracle v. Google Explains What Jurors Must Not Do -- And It's What the Jury in Apple v. Samsung Seem to Have Done ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Setting aside knowledge gained in another patent case
isn't the same thing as setting aside prior art.

The question is: did they reach a decision based
on the evidence at trial alone? If they based it
on what the foreman explained about the USPTO
validation process, it is a no no.

Whatever he learned from that process has little
to do with the courtroom. But even if it had
relevance, he wasn't supposed to introduce new
evidence at all, and if he did, being human, the
others were not supposed to reach a verdict based
on it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge in Oracle v. Google Explains What Jurors Must Not Do -- And It's What the Jury in Apple v. Samsung Seem to Have Done ~pj
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT
They were deadlocked. So he suggested they
leave it and move on for a bit. But they
went back to it first thing in the morning.
There is nothing wrong with that, actually,
but the problem is he showed up with his
aha moment in the morning and proceeded
to run off the rails, in my view.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )