|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
As a patent holder, the foreman's perspective was seriously
skewed. If you look at the patent he holds it is dangerously
close to Apple's patent in "trollishness".
In essence, claim 1 of his patent is for a PC + media
recorder + media playback ... invented in 2003. Other claims
are dependent and extend claim 1 adding stuff like an email
client resulting in a PC + media recorder + media playback +
email client. Another claim is PC + media recorder/playback
+ web browser.
It is simply amazing that during jury selection when he told
Samsung that he held patents that Samsung's lawyers didn't
look up the patents and scan for a troll factor.
Of course, someone that has filed and received a very
generic patent that is highly susceptible to prior art is
going to take the viewpoint that once a patent has issued
it's golden.
Samsung plus the rest of the Android community are now going
to pay for their lack of jury selection ability.
---nyarlathotep[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|