View Single Post
Old 08-27-2012, 02:29 PM   #78
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,743
Karma: 32912427
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Kobo H20, Pixel 2, Samsung Chromebook Plus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell View Post
is it consensus here that there is not a single new Apple technology that is wholly their own in the iPhone and or iPad line?
Your question is a red herring. It is not the issue at stake in this trial, which boiled down to a few key technical patents and a more nebulous design patent.

The court upheld Apple's technical patents to do with bounce back, pinch to zoom, and double tap to zoom. So this court believes that Apple invented those technologies. Given that these were upheld then Samsung's devices clearly infringed them.

The court also upheld Apple's design patent and judged which Samsung phones infringed. (Note, ignore the sites saying "Epic 4G, it's got a keyboard!" It was the Epic 4G Touch which basically looks like a rebadged Galaxy S.)

But the point is that given the jurors' statements about 'skipping the prior art evidence' and starting out from a position of 'how can we defend this patent', an appeal with a different jury who perhaps take more time and are more thorough may well produce a different result.

Invalidate the patents on the basis of prior art and it doesn't matter if Samsung infringed them.

Graham
Graham is offline