A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

Then again, maybe that's not what he meant to say. Because as read, these quotes suggest some pretty absurd things.

Revisionist? No. Personal opinion? Sure.

I personally remember the iPhone coming out and thinking it was awful. Fucking awful. And so did everyone I knew. When the G1 came out it was even worse. In my opinion, the only people that bought these awful phones were, to put it politely, "early movers".

> That's what innovation is. Not invention, no.

You're not really arguing against me. Apple deserve credit and riches for bringing a phone to market that people wanted. They don't deserve a monopoly. As you said, they didn't really "invent" anything

> only geeks and historians really care about invention

Maybe that's the way things should be. But right now the courts are involved, and the US courts (in contrast to some other courts) are saying that Apple have an exclusive right to features such as "pinch to zoom on a phone" that Apple didn't even invent.

Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing:

"The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down.""

Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim.

Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim.

Claim: They skipped a question. Quote: We skipped a question.

I think it's fair to say they skipped a question.

Even you admit to this with your own quote: "As far as I can tell, there's no evidence from those quotes that they skipped prior art, so much as skipped the task to move forward on others before circling back around to it." You say here that there is no evidence that they skipped, but there is evidence the skipped the question and most probably eventually came back to it later.

However, skipping did occur, which was the original contention backed up by statements from those who would know.

It would seem that you are the one trying to invent, poorly, as you can't even avoid contradicting yourself in your own comment.

But, you might ask, why would skipping and coming back matter as long as they addressed the question.

Context. The questions were ordered in a specific order. Addressing them out of order is, in essence, answering the questions "out of context." Indeed, the quotes suggest (though admittedly not directly) that by skipping the question, they were able to continue. But if that question had been answered as they had expected it to, would it have impacted the outcome? I believe so.

After all, the context in which you answer a question determines the answer (which is fairly obvious).

In the end, you are trying to paint the jurors in a different light. One in which they abided by the rules set forth (which they've already admitted to not doing[1]) and using the worksheets provided to reach the judgement (again, something they've admitted to modifying).

So no, I'm not inventing anything. Couple that with the "expertise" offered by a patent holder, it's fairly obvious there are issues with the ruling.

That all being said, maybe it's okay the jury ignore the provided worksheets and rewrote them. Maybe it's okay that they ignore instructions given to them by the judge. After all, they are the jury, and they our last line of defense. If we can ask a jury to find someone innocent facing an unjust law, we can expect them to make their voice heard in other cases as well.

Regardless, my point still stands: They skipped a question, they admitted to it, as did you, and you seem foolishly trying to take on other conditions as if somehow that makes the "fact" untrue.

Honestly, how can you even suggest they didn't skip the question, and then say they did, and try to blame someone else for inventing false narratives? I mean, besides being dishonest?

[1] They were instructed: "You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." However, what they "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

Apple was in NO way comparable to the likes of Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Motorola etc who had decades of pre-existing relationships in the mobile and component industries. Not to mention those companies were competing for lowest cost in some areas so had plenty of optimisation work already built into their supply chains.