Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title may be useful.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
Despite being paid tens or hundreds of thousands
to
testify, the
jury can ignore everything they said, if they
feel they should. Note the
"reasons given for the opinion"
could include that they got paid a
bundle.
This instruction is toothless because every expert in
this
case "got paid a bundle" for their services, right? It
will then come
down to who the "better liar" is.
It reminds me of the Oracle v. Google case
where "experts"
blatantly lied about the facts under oath!
Imagine, an
expert saying that a link is symbolic yet it
wasn't....a pure matter of fact.
It brings to question why
our justice system allows this kind of behavior. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your
comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.
Hint: Avoid a Geeklog bug that posts some links broken by putting a space on
either side of the text of the link, as in
<a href="http://example.com/foo"> See the spaces? </a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
I wonder if there's a juror strong enough to tear this in half and
throw it back, saying 'We find nobody wins anything, both lose.
Take your toys home and don't come near the court again.'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with full HTML markup but
posted in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can copy and paste it
See the Comes
Tracking Page to find and claim PDF files that still need to be
transcribed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arnotsmith on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
Were the jurors selected to be "persons of ordinary
skill in the field"? If not (as I suspect), how can they decide what
persons of ordinary skill in the field would know or recognise?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
Are there no technical people on Samsung's team?
It's super easy to set up a specific wifi network which has *some* websites to
visit (maybe one or two) but doesn't have a proper internet connection.
It would give the jurors the opportunity to check out the web browser and it
would make sure that the environment is tightly controlled.
Then you can use all the phones through wifi. Simple![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT |
I tried to read the instructions as though I was a jury member and had a panic
attack. After a few years of utility patents, business method patents, design
patents, trade dress and red dress, I still find what the jury has to achieve to
be mind-boggling.
Yet again we see patent madness. Samsung say they have an essential mobile
patented invention which includes a floggle-toggle on one side and Apple say
they have a mobile patented invention with humgrummits on the top. Both sides
tell the jury that if they find a floggle-toggle or a humgrummit on the opposing
sides phone then they are infringing.
But, these are just components of the invention. If the floggle-toggle or the
humgrummits are an invention in their own right then they must have a patent in
their own right. Otherwise, a patent on an auto engine would be infringed by
having wheel nuts on the axles (see what I did, there?).
Neither side seem to have shown that the asserted claims represent a definition
of a whole invention (assuming that an invention might be fully defined by
different groups of claims rather than all the claims in the patent).
Obviously, I won't discuss the realm of software patents at this point (Oi! I
heard that!).
My understanding is that one patent can only include one invention. As long as
the courts continue to instruct the jury that a patent can include lots of
inventions and that any one can be infringed in its own right, I cannot see how
the jury instructions can be valid.
That does not extend to design patents and trade dress. I think it is a
difficult set of legal concepts for the jury to consider, but a reasonable jury
should be able to resolve the questions in a satisfactory way.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Jury destructions - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
|