Karl... maybe you should do some of your own research before posting this nonsense. The jury didn't "ignore prior art"- they skipped the first couple of questions that dealt with prior art because they couldn't agree on the answer and then came back to it. Nor did Apple's trade dress have anything to do with "rounded edges".
I don't understand why such a huge percentage of bloggers and journalists are willing to make fools of themselves over this trial. It's pathetic.
Yeah this has got to be the most misquoted quote I've seen. The jury never said they ignored prior art, they simply said they put it aside temporary and came back to it later to prevent holding up the results for all the other patents.
It's like skipping question #1 on a ten question test because it's too hard, answering the other 9 and then coming back to #1.
The vast majority of the bloggers simply read "we skipped that one" with anti-Apple blinders and assume it means the jury completely ignored prior art. That or they simply are copying from other bloggers who mis-interpreted the interview, such as the Techdirt article author.
But I guess it has to be true, otherwise it couldn't be posted on the Internet.
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
|reply to sonicmerlin |
said by sonicmerlin The jury didn't "ignore prior art"- they skipped the first couple of questions that dealt with prior art because they couldn't agree on the answer and then came back to it. [/BQUOTE :
Do you have a link showing where they said they came back to it?
Even in the 15 minute interview with the jury foreman he doesn't contradict the idea that they skipped the prior art evidence and never returned to it.
When asked directly about prior art he answers instead:
"In the case of the design patent it was the look and feel of it, and how the device presented itself, and when you compared them side-by-side against the statements in the patent it was clear to every one of us that not only was the patent valid but that the Samsung products that were accused were legitimately a problem."
It's not a comparison between the accused devices and the iPhone against the patent that determines whether the design patent was valid, it's a weighing of the prior art.
The prior art was key to whether there was a valid trade dress patent for Samsung to infringe, and it is still appears that this jury foreman missed that point.