|
Authored by: dbc on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
I'm wondering what possible recourse exists? I'm pretty sure that jurors have
fairly broad immunity -- otherwise serving on a jury would be untenable. Still,
I would guess that the court could find a juror in contempt, and IIRC voir dire
is subject to perjury. Maybe somebody who knows can fill us in.
In any case, I suspect most judges would be hesitant to drop the hammer unless
it was an extremely clear-cut case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Apple was able to publicly damage a major competitor,
may have got more
converts than normal (although may
have backfired as Galaxy 3 sales were
up), and might even get
a huge payout plus removing a competitor from the big
game.
Defending oneself is not cheap for Samsung but losing would
be
extremely expensive. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
No.
No money has been wasted.
In fact, one can argue that it is money well spent
if you consider that this case (well, now cases),
is actually demonstrating the absolute insanity of
"software patents".
My condolences if you have Apple or Microsoft stock.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
For Apple this is not money of any consequence, this is just a another corporate
gamble the juries only function is to be the coin, whether it came up heads or
tails was accounted for before they even filed suit. Samsung on the other hand
was the victim, unless they made a decision during the design process to risk a
fight with Apple by making a similar design. The patent stuff is next to
impossible to account for so they were probably the victim in that aspect of
this case.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|