|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
As I recall, the decision of the jury was based upon reasoning of some sort.
Something like, Apple did not violate the Samsung patents because they were
covered by the principle of exhaustion. That Apple had bought the affected
components from Intel, which had already licensed the patent and so Apple does
not have to pay again, or something of similar effect. I could be wrong about
some of the particulars, but I think this is what I recall.
So, the question is, is it possible or simply impossible for Samsung or anyone
in a similar position to challenge a jury's verdict? Or is a jury verdict always
sacrosanct because it judged on "matters of fact"? Or can a jury's
verdict be challenged even if it simply got some of those "facts"
wrong, or ignored some relevant facts? For example, suppose that Samsung could
prove that what Apple would not license was not the same thing as what Intel had
paid a license for. Not saying that this is really what happened, because I
really do not know. But would Samsung then even have no chance to challenge a
jury's verdict just because it was a jury's verdict?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
It's one of those weird hybrid things, a matter of "mixed fact and
law".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
