31–40 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am going to be disillusioned with HN if this uninformed speculation isn't buried.
So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is? Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.
>Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right? EDIT: The way I see it -…
Apple should be asking for a mistrial without prejudice at this point. If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision like a pancake in appeals just on the interviews of the foreman. Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...
This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see. One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time…
the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision. Have you…
A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is? Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.
False dichotomy alert: the patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation. I don't think bribes were involved, for instance. Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda. Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figure…
I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors.
I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my) speculation'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a) differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade. On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
Here's another gem: "Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question. And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. " The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid…
This quote really bugs me: "Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so…
Here is his full answer: "Prior art was considered. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but th…
That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.
This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see. One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time…
>Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right? EDIT: The way I see it -…
I'm no iFan but I think this is a little too cynical. Also more than money, you are ruling out a major factor - sympathy for the home team. I still have faith that this ridiculous ruling will be overturned in an appeal.
Let us all hope so!