Silicon Investor
SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Technology Stocks : Apple Tankwatch

 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  
To: pyslent who wrote (21250)8/27/2012 6:02:27 PM
From: Road Walker1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 26279
 
This quote is being interpretted as though the issue of prior art was never considered in the entire jury deliberation, but that interpretation depends on what it was that was "skipped." Was it any discussion of prior art that was skipped? Or just the first patent that was skipped? As I read it, the statement could be referring to either.


The larger point is that a jury is a purported blank slate... it's up to the court and litigants to direct them what to consider, weigh, and use to render a decision. If they didn't weight prior art to the extent that some casual observers consider appropriate, it's not that they were a "bad" jury, one side probably didn't stress that, because they thought other arguments were stronger, or the judge didn't give sufficient weight to prior art. Hard for me to believe the judge part, as she had extensive patent experience. Cocky lawyers? Happens every day.


But as you say tempest in a tea pot. Sour grapes. If you're looking at an excuse for a loss, there is always something. Just watch the losers interviews after any football game.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.