Samsung Alleges Jury Misconduct in Courtroom Loss
agreed
was hostile territory at the start. Why would a jury in the home state of California convict one of the biggest companies in there state of ANYTHING. Was designed from the beginning for apple to win and needs to go to a Federal court.
...
Well...anyone who seriously thinks the verdict is going to stand is delusional......it will be overturned. big verdicts like this always are....
...
Agreed, and if it is not overturned completely the amount will be greatly reduced. In addition, if in fact there was a relationship with a samsung affiliate and the foreman of the jurrry than Samsung should have been allowed to investigate, espeically if that relationship ended up with a law suite.
...
They don't blindly defend a company as their 'duty' even when they're clearly in the wrong.
There was more than sufficient evidence to convict Samsung, to the point where Google even told Samsung they were going to get busted.
There was more than sufficient evidence to convict Samsung, to the point where Google even told Samsung they were going to get busted.
...
The only people who can decide what is, and what is not, a valid patent, is the patent office. Both judges and juries have to abide by the law, they can't just do whatever they want....if the patent office says that 'X' is a patent then judges have to abide by that, even if (as is the case here) the patents being enforced are ridiculous and absurd.....the judge can't just declare the patent invalid unless he can find a legal way to do that....
If I can get the patent office to give me a patent on the fact that water is wet, then I can sue every bottled water company in the country for violating my patent, and there's nothing that a judge or jury can do about it because the patent office says that 'wetness' belongs to me....the patent ca...
(continues)
If I can get the patent office to give me a patent on the fact that water is wet, then I can sue every bottled water company in the country for violating my patent, and there's nothing that a judge or jury can do about it because the patent office says that 'wetness' belongs to me....the patent ca...
(continues)
...
You're completely wrong.
The USPTO, only does a very small amount of background research on any patentet application and issues patents all the time that are later invalidated in court.
Having a patent issued does not automatically make it valid.
The USPTO, only does a very small amount of background research on any patentet application and issues patents all the time that are later invalidated in court.
Having a patent issued does not automatically make it valid.
...
I said 'they can't declare a patent invalid UNLESS THEY CAN FIND A LEGAL WAY TO DO IT'
There is a process that HAS TO BE FOLLOWED to invalidate a patent, a judge can't just say 'Apple, your fruit shaped logo looks stupid, therefore I declare all your patents invalid'
He can't just throw out a patent because he thinks it's stupid, he has to follow the proper legal procedure....
Or....as I put it....he can't invalidate a patent unless he can FIND A LEGAL WAY TO DO IT....
A judge's decision is not just his personal opinion, he has to follow the law.
There is a process that HAS TO BE FOLLOWED to invalidate a patent, a judge can't just say 'Apple, your fruit shaped logo looks stupid, therefore I declare all your patents invalid'
He can't just throw out a patent because he thinks it's stupid, he has to follow the proper legal procedure....
Or....as I put it....he can't invalidate a patent unless he can FIND A LEGAL WAY TO DO IT....
A judge's decision is not just his personal opinion, he has to follow the law.
...
But, come on you have to be honest. Apple's fruit shaped logo looks stupid... 😁 lol nah i do believe a good number of those patents are kinda ridiculous...
...
I don't know what was going on in Velvin Hogan's mind, but he's to blame for this whole mess.
He convinced the rest of the jury that in order for prior art invalidate a patent it must be "interchangable," but there is no such requirement for prior art. Aparently the rest of the jurors decided to listen to him and not read the judge's instructions.
I'm giving Velvin the benifit of the doubt and calling it bull-headed ignorance.
He convinced the rest of the jury that in order for prior art invalidate a patent it must be "interchangable," but there is no such requirement for prior art. Aparently the rest of the jurors decided to listen to him and not read the judge's instructions.
I'm giving Velvin the benifit of the doubt and calling it bull-headed ignorance.
...
This forum is closed.
