I wouldn't say 'clear'
It's a bit vague.
I'm definitely dubious about some of the reporting on this case.
(, Mon 27 Aug 2012, 13:32, Share, Reply)
I suppose that quote is a bit ambiguous, this one, less so...
"Just minutes after the nine jurors in the Apple Inc. AAPL +0.09% and Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE -0.93% patent trial began deliberating last week, they were stuck. It was seven "yes" votes to two "no" votes on the first question they faced: whether Samsung violated an Apple patent related to the bounceback action a touch-screen makes.
With the votes tallied on a white board, they decided to review the evidence, recounted juror Manuel Ilagan in an interview. They powered up a video of a computerized touchscreen tablet that had been developed by Mitsubishi 8306.TO -1.60% that Samsung asserted proved Apple didn't come up with the idea first and that its patent should be invalidated.
They were huddled around a large oval table in a conference room at the federal courthouse here. On one side there was a large white board. On the other, a refrigerator and coffee machine.
Mr. Ilagan, who is 59, said they watched the video "very, very carefully" but decided to move on when the two weren't swayed. "We didn't want to get bogged down," said Mr. Ilagan, who works in marketing for a company that makes circuit boards.
The bounceback patent, which the jurors eventually decided unanimously that Samsung infringed, was one of a handful of sticking points in the otherwise smooth and surprisingly quick 22 hours of deliberations, according to Mr. Ilagan's account."
online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html (paywall)
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Tue 28 Aug 2012, 18:38,
Share,
Reply)