Quote:
Originally Posted by emilikins
There are certainly judges who are corrupt (accepting payment in regards to a ruling - no, not their paycheck), but with the old school slate picture, I think many judges probably aren't all up to snuff on historical devices or user experience/preferences, so they might rule in Apple's favor not because Apple paid them off, but because they didn't do their homework (should they fire the intern/paralegal/slave) or just don't "get it" and let a convincing team of lawyers sway them.
I'm not saying the above scenario is fact, just that a judge not taking the school slate into account isn't a form of corruption.
|
Do you think that the judge hasn't seen a rectangle with rounded corners before they laid eyes on the iPad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
If you honestly believe that the EU patent office was bribed or otherwise influenced into giving Apple a patent that they wouldn't have granted otherwise, then corruption is the right word for you to use.
I don't believe that, and I think it is pretty laughable that anyone would.
|
And I think that it's laughable that anyone would think that a judge that is in charge of making decisions regarding IP rights would be this clueless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
It might be a crappy system, it might be a huge waste of money all around, but I don't see corruption, just bureaucracy and a poorly thought out and implemented patent system.
|
Bureaucracy slows things down, it doesn't make things move faster.