Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell
And you said rounded corners and left off other specifics that have to be included to make rounded corners valid.
|
This is one of the more bizarre outcomes of the trial. I agree with you that the full set of specifics needs to be included.
First, the jury ignored the fact that the devices that they ruled infringed the design patent had more buttons than a single rounded one. Not sure why you only count the first against the patent.
Apple: "I've patented a design with one button".
Samsung: "But my device has three."
Apple: "One of those three is the one button in my patent."
However, skipping that oddity, the jury ruled reasonably on a set of Samsung phones that infringed, which were basically the variants of the Galaxy S and S2 series.
Yet they decided that the Galaxy Tab didn't infringe the same design patent vs the iPad.
If the Tab didn't infringe, then why did the phones?
Could it be because the Tab didn't have a button at all?
Graham