IThe US justice system just gets more hilarious.
The foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.
That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question.
Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:
Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.
And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.
The foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.
That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question.
Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:
Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.
And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.
Paul.
Well-known member
professorhat
Well-known member
The main question is, if this involved any company other than Apple, would Pluto still be classified as a planet?
Paul.
Well-known member
AnotherJoe said:
I wouldn't judge. I listen to some great music and some arguably embarrassing music. Genuine curiosity.
If u were in my favourite boozer last night (The Salisbury, Manchester) you could have heard me put this lot on the jukebox..
Smashing Pumpkins - 1979
Kansas - Carry On My Wayward Son
Helloween - Keeper Of the Seven Keys Pt2
Creedance ClearWater Revival - Fortunate Son
Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell
Cure - Just Live Heaven
Q Lazzurus - Goodbye Horses
Smashing Pumpkins - 1979
Kansas - Carry On My Wayward Son
Helloween - Keeper Of the Seven Keys Pt2
Creedance ClearWater Revival - Fortunate Son
Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell
Cure - Just Live Heaven
Q Lazzurus - Goodbye Horses
Paul.
Well-known member
I feel slightly responsible for the Pumpkins demise. I decided I liked them and then pretty much instantly they broke up. Oh well.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Paul Hobbs said:
What a coincidence. I decided Samsung hadn't infringed any patents and then look what went and happened.
What usually happens is I buy into a computer system and within a year it either gets discontinued or the manufacturer goes bust. So Apple should be thankful they are still trading to be honest.
I've just had a read of this, and really don't understand why someone would put such a post on a Hi-Fi forum. I don't consider myself to be an poorly educated person; but a lack of basic legal terminology is one of the gaps in my knowledge, as I expect to be the case with the majority of forum members. I'm almost certain you could have put it forward in a more understandable way, as I assume you are one of the few who understands what you've written. I don't mean this in a mean way, I just think you would have got a lot more replied revenant to your own post if you'd made it remotely comprehendible.
On a lighter note, I agree with the redundancy of a jury in this case. I imagine the desicion essentially came down to which company's lawyer could most articulately explain the situation in laymen's terms . .
On a lighter note, I agree with the redundancy of a jury in this case. I imagine the desicion essentially came down to which company's lawyer could most articulately explain the situation in laymen's terms . .
bigboss
Moderator
Ryan92 said:
Well, it's in "smartphones and tablets" section of the forum, isn't it?
You can discuss anything on a forum. That's why this forum has much more than just "HiFi" & "Home Cinema" sections, including "Off Topic & Miscellaneous" which allows you to post any topic you like, not necessarily related to HiFi.
John Duncan
Well-known member
bigboss said:Ryan92 said:
Well, it's in "smartphones and tablets" section of the forum, isn't it?
You can discuss anything on a forum. That's why this forum has much more than just "HiFi" & "Home Cinema" sections, including "Off Topic & Miscellaneous" which allows you to post any topic you like, not necessarily related to HiFi.
Oh, I didn't mean you can't post about legal matters on the forum. I find this whole thig fairly interesting, as I imagine most of the forum members do. All I'm saying is I imagine the majority or forum members could have understood better if it had been written in simpler terminology as it's not a forum that would have more legal minds than any other . .
bigboss
Moderator
Steve Wozniak isn't happy with the verdict:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28751-steve-wozniak-hates-apple-vs-samsung-verdict
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/apple-s-wozniak-hopes-iphone-photos-beat-his-samsung-galaxy-s.html
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28751-steve-wozniak-hates-apple-vs-samsung-verdict
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/apple-s-wozniak-hopes-iphone-photos-beat-his-samsung-galaxy-s.html
bigboss said:
just read that. Wozniak is a genius, would love to see him back at the helm of apple now, we'd probably have a iphone you implant in to your brain
cheeseboy said:we'd probably have a iphone you implant in to your brain
It's already there, you just can't feel it. Remember the Riddler (Jim Carey) and his fiendish plot - APPLE TV!!!!
- ask Joe, he knows :O
AnotherJoe said:
The Salisbury AleHouse was my local when I was at the (then) Polytechnic, and the last point of call before Rockworld/Jillys nights.
Ahhh.
BenLaw
Well-known member
BenLaw
Well-known member
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram