3 ms·
The jury had 14 days of hearing evidence. It is quite possible that the case was so compelling that it didn't take them very long to decide the points. I've ye
by nirvana 14y ago
The jury had 14 days of hearing evidence. It is quite possible that the case was so compelling that it didn't take them very long to decide the points.
I've yet to see any argument that the verdict is wrong, based on an understanding of the patents in question.
- syjer 14y agoThey found that the nexus s infringed the bounce back patent. But this is impossible as it use vanilla android which has never implemented this behaviour. So it looks like kinda rushed for _some_ decisions.
- pvidler 14y agoThere is what looks like bounce back at around 0:36 onwards in this video review: http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-nexus-s-at/4505-6452_7-34431171.html http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-nexus-s-at/4505-... It's some sort of app list screen though and happens between what looks like screens of icons, so I'm not sure if it counts. For lists it looks like an orange glow effect, possibly with some small bounce, but that may be an optical illusion. This might be enough to confuse a jury? I haven't checked the patent to see if it actually infringes or not.