|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
He said he could defend the Apple patent as if it was his own after the first
day. What he was trying to do, imo, was to find some structure to
"help" the jury to reach a fair verdict. Well meaning, but illegal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- This is the point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- This is the point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- how did he - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- how did he - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- This is the point. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
His point of view should have been "Did the party with the burden of proof
show enough evidence that proves their side that was not refuted by evidence
shown by the other side?". Neither side made an argument that the
eligibility of the patent had anything to do with what hardware the Apple code
runs on being different from the hardware the demonstrated prior art ran on. It
doesn't matter if the foreman came up with that by asking the question "How
would _I_ have defended this patent to an examiner if I was back at the PTO
applying for it?" or if he asked "How would I have gone about this if
I were Samsung attacking the patent?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
It's not his place to "attack" or "defend" any patent. The
responsibility of the jury is to decide what the parties involved have proved in
court, regardless of the juror's opinions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
He was not there to either defend or attack the patent. When he decided to do
so he put himself in the role of one of the parties to the case rather than
being an arbiter of the facts presented. When he then also decided to bring
evidence (facts) of his own and present it to the rest of the jury he went the
rest of the way awry.
IANAL, etc... but I don't see how this verdict can be left standing after all
his interviews and the confessions he made in them.
---
Political correctness is an effort to abrogate the First
Amendment under the assumption that there exists a right to
not be offended and that it has priority[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
I don't believe the question was ever posed, is there any record that the
foreman presented this question before the court?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
