You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words.
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
It no longer makes a difference.
It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area.
Just accept it.
You have no understanding whatsoever of the legal system. This is round one.
"Your honor, please take note of RBR's sudden quietness to substantiate his trolling remarks as anything more than that."
Samsung got what it deserved. What's really sad are these Samsung/freetard fanboys making-up nonsense, throwing it at a wall and hoping that something sticks.
Go read for yourself.
it seems the quickest means to prevent the ban is to remove the feature(s) the jury found to be infringing on Apple's patents. appeals can take months or years to work through the courts.
This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.
But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
Apple won in a trial by jury. Best of luck to Samsung to overturn it. In fact, not bloody likely.
A jury didn't find Samsung's arguments convincing. Unless there was some clear, overwhelmingly significant error that was committed, the jury verdict is usually where it ends. A jury *will not* be expert in all matters, and will display their own concerns, viewpoints, and generally show their foibles. But that is the point of this legal system. Representation by everyday people *is* the point. Samsung failed to convince them. There was no gross error on the jury's part, only on the part of Samsung's legal team.
If they want to continue to fight this, it'll be more than an uphill battle.
Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.
This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
To further address your nonsense, there was a jury selection process. These jurors were screened and agreed to by both Apple and Samsung. All part of procedure.
Samsung has about 1% chance on appeals. They have zero momentum and now being dictated by outside sources in Apple's home state by both Apple and the Courts. Their press release is a disgrace and an genuine public afront.... another PR blunder. Some concession and humbleness would have been appropriate.. rather then worthless bravado...
Since when is Samsung's Design and their R&D labs are in Cupertino?
They should be trying to settle this with Apple in private and not commit suicide in their biggest market and with a very big customer. Their real problem is with Google.
who is directing all this Samsung?
Could be same people, alt accounts. *shrugs*
Then again, there's no shortage of them over at MacRumors. Too funny. It's an Apple-centric website, and they go there to troll. *doesn't make sense.*
Because Apple's continued success, their cockiness, their foresight, the way they humiliate their competitors and then teabag them in Consumer Satisfaction, their devotion to a closed ecosystem, their shrewdness, their obsession with detail and control, their devotion to making tech easy, usable, and less complex for Joe Average (read: can't tinker, sorry IT crowd), and their insistence on protecting what's rightfully theirs . . . drives him absolutely batshit crazy.
And it warms my heart to see that.
I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.
I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)
Cheers
So if you lose a case, attack the jury. You're saying bias = knowing something about patents?
Not like idiotic fools who either can not read and comprehend what was written in the interviews or who simply are unable to digest facts with which they do not agree.
You, sir, are a fool.
Want to show some reference as what to read. Calm down Sally. Just put a link and cite your source please.
In the Bloomberg interview, the foreman stated:
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
The only problem with this statement is that this is NOT how you disqualify prior art and is complete contradictory to the instructions given to the jury. It indeed appears that the jury DID NOT follow the judge's instructions on many levels as was speculated from day 1 by many analyst because of the the insanely quick verdict. This verdict has appeal written all over it.
If you are interested in reading more, Groklaw has a thorough analysis at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
1) I never said the foreman was biased. You are putting words into my mouth. I was responding to your comment of "tell us which words you're referring to where the foreman allegedly substituted his knowledge for the judge's instructions?" He clearly substituted his understanding of valid prior art with what was was instructed to him.
2) I completely disagree with this statement. Just because the foreman THINKS he accurately followed instructions doesn't mean he actually did. I'm sure the foreman truly thought he was doing the right thing, but people make mistakes. Unfortunately, in this situation, it appears to be a very egregious one.
3) This was not a trial of a simple guilty or not-guilty charge. This case REQUIRED massive analysis regardless of how one-sided it was.
4) Please substantiate your claim that Groklaw has an "intense hatred of Apple". If you don't like Groklaw's assessment, there are plenty more analyst saying the same thing. http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis. Regarding your "error of law" vs "error of fact" statement, how is a jury not following instuctions from the judge an "error of fact"???
5) Again, how are you missing the fact that the foreman is replacing his understanding of "valid prior art" with what was instructed to the jury?
Why are you citing an article that starts with the self-proclaimed caveat of "I'm a business lawyer, not a patent lawyer."? Both the links I have now provided are from exactly those...patent lawyers....
Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?
"For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention."
Maybe you think "single previous publication" does not count as "words on a piece of paper"?
Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.
That isn't to say that HAD the jury compared the patent claims to the evidence that they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. They very well may have. However, they did not follow the jury instructions and have left the verdict susceptible to appeal.
