Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390]. "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." My favourite inconsistency [http://madisonian.net/2012/08/25/brief-initial-thoughts-on-apple-v-samsung/]: a Samsung phone with a keyboard [http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/epic-4g-review-26-sm.jpg], four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.

Original story page here.

Copyright OSNews.com 1997-2006. All Rights Reserved. OSNews and the OSNews logo are trademarks of OSNews.
All trademarks, icons, and logos, shown or mentioned in this web site, are the property of their respective owners.
Reproduction of OSNews stories is granted only by explicitly receiving authorization from OSNews and if credit is given to OSNews.
Privacy statement   -   Notice to Bulk Emailers