One of the questions is
were the patents valid in the first place?
It sounds as if some of the prior art evidence washed over, if not ignored. The decision was much too quick given the amount of questions the jury were given.
(, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 13:24, Share, Reply)
That's nonsense too (no offence)
It's not like the 700 questions were all completely separate and totally different.
The majority would've been...
"Did device A infringe of patent X"
"Did device A infringe of patent Y"
"Did device A infringe of patent Z"
"Did device B infringe of patent X" etc...
Once the jurors had satisfied themselves as to what exactly constituted a violation of one of the patents and whether it had been infringed, AND being as a number of the patents were for software design elements that were the same for many of the phones, they could just go down the list checking off infringing devices rather than having to go through the entire process for each of them.
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 14:05,
Share,
Reply)
Well if the jury had done such a good job of that,
how did they manage to award damages against Samsung for devices they had found were not in infringement? That's a pretty odd thing to happen if they'd done their jobs with due diligence.
It was a shoddy, rushed job.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 14:24,
Share,
Reply)
One of the questions is
were the patents valid in the first place?
Also, it could be nonsense, but you can't categorically say "That's nonsense" unless you were in the room. Beyond what is being reported (assuming it is factual) you probably have as much of a clue as I do.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a massive lazy fuck up.
(, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 16:17, Share, Reply)
I can say it's nonsense because it's all there in the jury verdict form
www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1931.pdf
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 29 Aug 2012, 23:57,
Share,
Reply)