Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness
There are 130 pages of blatant recommendations to copy almost every UI element of iOS. I don't see this being debunked in the Groklaw page you linked to.
|
This is a mischaracterization of what that document is. There were no "blatant recommendations to
copy almost every UI element" ... rather it identified functionality and UI elements (but more so functionality) that in comparison to iOS could use improvement, but there was no recommendation to simply "copy" the implementation of these things outright.
This type of powerpoint presentation is frequently done in almost every large company in order to compare their products with the competition and identify areas for improvement. It's nothing unusual.
I've also had a chance to read a little on that groklaw site, and it sounds like the verdict is on thin ice for various reasons:
1) The conduct of the jury foreman is in question as he incorrectly interpreted various points of law to his fellow jurors -- for example he was totally wrong about the need for interchangeability as it pertains to prior art. The rest of the jury therefore dismissed instances of prior art based on this incorrect interpretation.
2) The background of the jury foreman is in question. He was involved in contentious litigation with Seagate that he didn't fully disclose before the trial started. Samsung holds a very large stake in Seagate. It was therefore a conflict of interest.
3) Apparently, the jury returned confusing verdict forms, awarding damages for devices they found did not infringe on Apple's patents.
4) Some legal experts expect that this may go all the way to the Supreme Court due to the questionable patentability of UI elements -- that is if the verdict isn't thrown out by the trial judge or an appeals court first.
So there's no clear or quick path right now for Apple to collect on this verdict. Samsung has a good chance to ultimately prevail -- or at least get the judgment significantly reduced.
--Pat