Stupid jury kills innovation/competition and hands Apple a monopoly

[Kasz216]

kain_kusanagi said:

Kasz216 said:

kain_kusanagi said:

Kasz216 said:

The only thing that should be copyrightable is direct code in this case.

If you can copy something using your own work... well good.

It's a user interface, not a fictional character or mascot.

Look at the Fashion Industry, where something like 80% of the industries goal is to "Copy someone elses look."

While the other 20%'s job is mostly,  "Innovate somethign new off someone elses look."

Yes. Everybody read above. This guy gets it.

You can't patent "look and feel". Apple lost against MS when they tried and Xerox lost against Apple when they tried. I guess the jurors today were stupid or  Mac fans, or stupid Mac fans.

Or the head juror owned patents and therefore benefited from a wide view of patenet law.

In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/25/jurors_knew_samsung_was_guilty_after_first_day_of_deliberations_wanted_to_send_message_with_verdict.html

Wow. Thanks for the source on that. I bet "Do you hold any patents" was the first question Apple's attorney's asked the potential jurors.

Maybe Samsung can use this info to have the decision thrown out. It's probably not enough though.

Wouldn't matter.  Samsung was there when they selected the jury.   Samsung heard he owned patenets.   Samsung didn't challenge.

No doubt Samsung misread the guy in trial selection.