Thank goodness for Groklaw.net
#Samsung and #ApplevsSamsung
Read the whole article, but quick quote:
If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn’t take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.
Come on. This is farce.
Seriously…they reached a verdict in THREE DAYS. Only thing I seem to be wrong about is Motorola being the next up to take on Apple; Samsung might have lost this round – but the fight ain’t over, apparently.
A Pun Involving Travel 
Maybe because you asked 9 presumably non-technical non-lawyers to fill out a 700 question form? Inconsistencies? How is this possible?
LikeLike
Or possibly because the foreman is a patent holder, and is on-record as wanting to make sure that Samsung didn’t get away with what they’d done to Apple with just a slap on the wrist? Read the article, there’s some genuinely surprising statements from and about the jury and their deliberations.
LikeLike
Well that makes for a more interesting excerpt.
LikeLike
…or not. The article confirms my “shocked, shocked” comment. What do you expect when many tech companies legal depts. can’t even grok the LGPL.
LikeLike
Right, I doubt I could get through 700 questions arguing with 11 other people before I just started saying “whatever” to make the pain stop.
Changing patent law seems like a better way to approach this, but I think we’ve come to a point where most people think of patents as the right thing to do in all cases. Seems like I’ve heard “I wish I had the patent on that, I’d be a millionaire!” for silly things like bottle stoppers numerous times. People seem to immediately think of the patent system as some kind of lotto and imagine holding the winning ticket instead of the reality of paying the patent tax in most cases.
LikeLike