11–20 of 101 posts
> we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision.
Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!
Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
I have found their coverage (of Apple v Samsung) useful. The only other outlet that covered some of the more unusual aspects of the verdict and the post-trial jury interviews (that I saw) was BBC.
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?