Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
The "average joe" has no clue what patents even ARE. They completely
confuse patents, copyrights and trademarks and corporations have been trying to
convince people for years that the most trivial stuff is "the work of
genius." I guess to a moron of a juror the idea of rounding corners on a
rectangle seems like rocket science.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
Doubletap to zoom for example. Let's assume that this is original and novel for
now. You can argue up and down that its a brilliant idea etc, but it's an
*idea* - and as such isn't patentable. The patent has to be on an
implementation of tap to zoom, not tap to zoom itself.
Is that distinction apparent to a jury? Apparently not I guesss?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
And just as bad, "The jury did not find Apple infringing on any of Samsung's
patents."
And why didn't Samsung ask USPTO for a reexamination of Apple's
patents during the discovery phase?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Who did jury selection for Samsung? Someone holding a software patent is
obviously biased when deciding invalidity on subject matter grounds.
The foreman should not have been in the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Can a jury that is not composed at least partially of "someone
versed in the arts" have any chance at all of making a verdict
about patent validity?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|