That goes both ways though. It could be easily framed as "the jury wasn't compelled to agree with some of the poaching claims" but "did find the patent claims c

That goes both ways though. It could be easily framed as "the jury wasn't compelled to agree with some of the poaching claims" but "did find the patent claims compelling, so there was evidently something more there". And, like it or not, it is common and accepted to note that there was conviction/guilt upon that verdict. When someone is convicted of a crime (I'm not saying this is) the common phrasing is "they were convicted of a crime" not "maybe, we'll have to see, maybe they decided correctly, maybe they didn't, let's wait for all the appeals first". So I'm unsure why there's this caveat for Apple. Yes, patent claims are difficult, and there's a few areas where it is even more ripe for reform. But even then, the phrasing would still be "found to infringe on patent, overturned on appeal" - because the fact that at some point there was significant enough impetus to believe it happened is notable. You make a big deal about Masimo "not being a mom and pop company - they have $1.24B in revenue", but that ignores the fact that Apple is there with $393B. I could equally say "Well, if Apple, with the legal resources it could afford, couldn't convince a jury that they didn't infringe two supposedly simple patents, then maybe, just maybe, they did infringe..." (I did remove the 'hilarity' comment - it sincerely wasn't intended as insulting. But I did feel that the contortions that some people are doing in order to say "Well, I know they were found guilty, but woah, let's not be hasty, we don't reallllly know they are!" amusing.)