51–56 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but the part about bribery is pure speculation. I am also shocked to find this at the top spot.
So much money is in the play that bribery should be assumed by default until proven beyond reasonable dubt otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the full quote and it's wrong. Period. If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.) It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make st…
"Interchangeable code" wasn't the standard. In fact "interchangeable code" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. What would have invalidated Apple's patent was if the implementation in their patent was "sufficiently similar" to the prior art's implementation. They found that it wasn't, so the patent wasn't invalidated. I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You cherry-picked one pa…
Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.
A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable."
"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."
Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what his conclusion is.
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…
Er, his attempted justification for ignoring prior art is completely and utterly wrong, and indeed is so bizarrely wrong-headed, that it suggests more an intentional lie than simple ignorance.
The appeals court needs to skewer this guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much money is in the play that bribery should be assumed by default until proven beyond reasonable dubt otherwise.
And logically you could extend that to ridiculous extremes. Assuming anything by default is a sign of a weak argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Nice. Except they awarded $130e6 in damages for the Epic 4G. A slider.
The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided "Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.
Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.