|
|
|
| Authored by: imperial on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 02:01 AM EST |
You are completely wrong. The judges instructions to the jury included their
need to assess whether the patent should have been issued. The just was
specifically instructed by the Judge to do decide if the patent was correctly
issued and only then to consider whether or not it had been infringed.
It is no more difficult to decide whether something is patentable that to decide
if a particular algorithm is infringing on a particular claim. In fact, it would
be considerably simpler for a jury to decide patentability than it would be to
decide infringement if they were doing their jobs diligently, which this jury
did not do. They were not diligent, they failed to follow clear and simple
instructions and they failed to discharge their civic duty with any degree of
responsibility.
They were given prior art to consider. They were given to opportunity to
consider originality, obviousness and novelty. There given guidelines on how to
assess a patent's validity and their response was 'lets not do that, lets just
assume they are valid, except for Samsung's'
How is that more difficult than deciding whether actions take place in a
run-time environment or or use pointers to values (neither of which is actually
patentable under US law even though the patents have been issued)
The jury was derelict in its responsibilities and the whole trial should be
tossed out for the farce it has clearly been.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
