[SwitchFX]

Here we go... again.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57500504-71/legal-analysts-suggest-apple-samsung-verdict-may-not-be-safe/
Quote:

Lawyers tend to know everything.

It's just that their knowledge of everything seems occasionally to conflict with the knowledge of other lawyers, who also know everything.

However, I have been seeking legal guidance on what seems like the strangely swift decision by nine local Californians to order Samsung to pay Apple more than $1 billion.

One place where lawyers gather to read views is the award-winning site Groklaw. I fancy that many of the legal experts who post there have long blond hair and drive personalized Bentleys.

 

[AznDud333]

^second poster..remove * before mods give you warning/infraction LOL
also..no duh...everyone but apple fanboy knew the trial was unfair(due to blocked out evidences and ridiculous patent)

 

[grizzlyblunting]

and the fact that jury reasoning can be reviewed

 

[HanSomPa]

Quote:

Yet there is a certain curious persuasiveness about Groklaw's suggestion that this verdict may be in grave danger of further questioning.

You don't say...

 

[lacrossewacker]

The jury should be held accountable for their incompetence
Totally violated the law

 

[SectorNine50]

A jury is not supposed to be exceptionally knowledgeable. In fact, the less they know about the subject often leads to a less biased decision.

It's up to the lawyers to present all the information needed for an educated decision to be made.

EDIT:
Ignore this post, the poster I was replying to edited their post which now makes this one irrelevant.

 

[Domino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

A jury is not supposed to be exceptionally knowledgeable. In fact, the less they know about the subject often leads to a less biased decision.

It's up to the lawyers to present all the information needed for an educated decision to be made.

If the person becomes biased as they obtain knowledge, then they don't actually know anything - they've attained nothing. Knowledge would yield the understanding of the Forms, and where one would be ethically right, which has not been the case in these verdicts. To give you an example, look at Steve Wozniak. He knows his tech. You want a judge with his level of understanding.

 

[banded1]

i read the comments

lmao

 

[Benladesh]

I doubt the verdict will stick, there is too much controversy regarding it. The jury was extremely unprofessional.

 

[Mach 5]

So it looks like the jurors dished out what they thought should be a sufficient punishment to Samsung, rather than compensation to Apple for its losses....surely that screams that the jurors were either biased against Samsung or just didnt have a clue what they were doing?

 

[DuckieHo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach 5

So it looks like the jurors dished out what they thought should be a sufficient punishment to Samsung, rather than compensation to Apple for its losses....surely that screams that the jurors were either biased against Samsung or just didnt have a clue what they were doing?

Well, the jury instructions were not to punitive..... which they were and not following instructions.... which they apparently did not read.

 

[Sanger Zonvolt]

I don't disagree that there is something fishy with the verdict. Though I had a chuckle when I thought about what if the jury was 100% OCN members. Chances are Apple would be down 2 Bil+ lol.

 

[Schoat333]

I'd like to see what the verdict would be in each state. Californians are probably biased because Apple is based there. Kind of like a pride of their state type of thing.

 

[DuckieHo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schoat333

I'd like to see what the verdict would be in each state. Californians are probably biased because Apple is based there. Kind of like a pride of their state type of thing.

While biases are unavoidable, they can be mitigated. Jury selection process and a jury instructions should have done their part.

 

[amtbr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacrossewacker

The jury should be held accountable for their incompetence
Totally violated the law

And what law did the jury violate?

 

[Mach 5]

This made me laugh on a follow-up article, discussing prior art validations:
Quote:

Wanhang:
"Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?"

Velvin Hogan @Wanhang
"I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art."

Back at you, Mr. Hogan. Back at you. But someone calling himself Firewheels responded much more effectively:

Firewheels @Velvin Hogan
"You're suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn't it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?
If, however, you're suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid.

Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due."

Mr. Hogan has not replied, and it's been 4 hours. As another questioner, Bazzatoyou, phrased it after waiting an hour for a response that never came, "Looks like The Hogan has left the room ...!"

Source

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amtbr

And what law did the jury violate?

They decided to take the law into their own hands and simply validate as many of Apples claims as they saw fit in order to match up to a damages sum that they deemed fit for Samsung to pay.

They used the process as a way to project their own justice. Even awarding Apple up to $2,000,000 for something they themselves had ruled was not infringed upon by Samsung.

Basically, they made a mockery of what was already a mockery and ignored their instructions as a jury.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach 5

This made me laugh on a follow-up article, discussing prior art validations:
Source

LOL

 

[2010rig]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanger Zonvolt

I don't disagree that there is something fishy with the verdict. Though I had a chuckle when I thought about what if the jury was 100% OCN members. Chances are Apple would be down 2 Bil+ lol.

Plus stripped of all their stupid patents, plus ordered to stop patent trolling.

 

[CaptainChaos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

A jury is not supposed to be exceptionally knowledgeable. In fact, the less they know about the subject often leads to a less biased decision.
It's up to the lawyers to present all the information needed for an educated decision to be made.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about being exceptionally knowledgeable in terms of the tech, it's about taking your time to make a fair judgement and considering all of the variables. The fact that many legal experts say it would take them (the legal experts) at least 3 days to fully understand all of the instructions and fairly assess all of the terms of the verdict just goes to show that the jury probably rushed their decision/did not fully understand the judges instructions.

 

[Schoat333]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo

While biases are unavoidable, they can be mitigated. Jury selection process and a jury instructions should have done their part.

People can be intentionally deceptive tho. At some point during the Jury selection, the questions would surely reveal what case they were being interviewed for.