Jury: Samsung owes Apple one BILLION dollars

[DGuller]

Like I'll accept judgment on what is funny and what isn't from a Pole. Or a supposed lawyer.

Poles and lawyers have lots of experience being involved in the telling of jokes.

[dps]

Here is what the juror actually said to CNET:

'After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down

Shouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial?

I don't think so - unless having stupid, ignorant people on the jury is the grounds for mistrial. 

The argument would probably be that the judge's instructions to the jury were flawed, though that would probably depend at least in part on exactly what the instructions were.

[lustindarkness]

I did not care for Apple, now this makes me dislike it. If not overtunred in appeal, it will just hurt the consumer in the end.

[Grey Fox]

This isn't about Apple, it's about giving out patents for features that are not inventions & even innovations.

[The Minsky Moment]

Eastern District Texas is no longer as common a venue ever since the Federal Circuit starting to get more aggressive granting writs of mandamus transferring venue when there is a lack of connection to eastern Texas.  Also, wider adoption of patent rules and specialized patent panels by other districts has attracted cases elsewhere (particularly Delaware).

[Valmy]

I thought they were supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers.  I expected the jury to be composed to HTC, Nokia, Motorola, LG, and Sony Ericsson.

[mongers]

Damn I'm going to have to work harder on having less curves, otherwise Apple is going to sue my ass off me. 

[crazy canuck]

Damn I'm going to have to work harder on having less curves, otherwise Apple is going to sue my ass off me. 

Apple has nothing on Monsanto.

[Barrister]

So I didn't really post any analysis before.

First, it's interesting how almost 20 years after Apple's infringement lawsuit against Microsoft crashed and burned, they have now succeeded against Samsung.  The difference is in how they framed it - the MS "look and feel" lawsuit was a copyright lawsuit, this was and is patent legislation.

On the internet, and here as well, I see the lame freetard argument of "information just wants to be free" and "this will harm consumers".  Sure a company, having developed a new and unique product, has some level of right to protect that new and unique product from copying.  And some of the emails from Samsung seemed to make it quite clear they wanted to copy,. err, be inspired, by the iPhone.

Are the iPhone patents obvious, or should they be invalidated by prior art?  I don't know.  They's getting well outside of my area of expertise.  Maybe they are.  A couple of the allegations for patenting "rectangles with rounded corners" do seem lame.

Interesting to see where this goes.

[HVC]

I thought they were supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers.  I expected the jury to be composed to HTC, Nokia, Motorola, LG, and Sony Ericsson.

that'd be awesome

[CountDeMoney]

I thought they were supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers.  I expected the jury to be composed to HTC, Nokia, Motorola, LG, and Sony Ericsson.

that'd be awesome

Why not;  works for the SEC and the Treasury Department.

[Jacob]

Speaking of Motorola (now owned by google), they're bringing out some new smartphones, and they're not afraid of Apple at all it seems: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/technology/google-apple-motorola-droid-razr/index.html?iid=HP_River

[PDH]

I suspect Apple with decide the victory over Samsung is enough and not feel the need to sue Google.