Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
It's not about the damages.
It's about the patents and the possibility that Apple will be
able to "blackmail" them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
From a financial standpoint, Samsung would probably do
better to
argue
down damages. If it insists upon a new trial and loses then
triple
damages are
are a certainty.
From what I gather the jury was
ready to find for Samsung
until a certain confused juror on a mission to punish
Samsung had his 'aha' moment and managed to convince the
other jurors of his
incorrect interpretation of patent law.
This is all so blatantly wrong - I'm
surprised PJ hasn't
lost her faith in the US legal system yet. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
"And I expect that Apple will probably do better in the
do-over."
You apparently don't understand there will be a different
jury, or that Samsung will get a chance to provide certain
evidence that was excluded.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- meh - Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
Given that Hogan was, initially, in a minority of one as I understood, I don't
think that would be right.
I get the impression that he rapidly swayed them to his view, but from somewhere
(the other juror who spoke out?) I got the impression the "first
impression" of the other jurors was for Samsung.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|