4 ms·

Staggering how much ignorance there is about this case: 1) It was NOT TECHNICAL. It was predominately a lawsuit about trade dress and UI driven patent infringe

Staggering how much ignorance there is about this case: 1) It was NOT TECHNICAL. It was predominately a lawsuit about trade dress and UI driven patent infringement. It is exactly the same as judging whether a Nike shoe has been copied or not. You don't need to understand the technicalities of the manufacturing process. 2) The Samsung standards essential patents WERE considered valid and infringed. Just that due to patent exhaustion Apple was exempt from infringement. So maybe you should understand the very basics of the case first.

ohashi 14y ago
"Just that due to patent exhaustion Apple was exempt from infringement." Could you explain that?
VanL 14y ago
Umm, you are mistaken. Yes, they found there was patent exhaustion. They also found that the patents were not infringed. Exhaustion is a completely separate issue from infringement.
- cube13 14y ago
  If they found that there was patent exhaustion, Apple could not have been guilty of infringing on the patents. The exhaustion doctrine is pretty clear on this.
  - VanL 14y ago
    Patent exhaustion is about liability for infringement, not infringement itself.
spartango 14y ago
I'm strongly with you on (1). As people working within technology, we really want this case to be about a technical point which has some objectively correct conclusion. The reality is that the US justice system doesn't work this way, and wasn't designed to. It's not technocratic in the way it reaches a verdict. The jury are not specialists, and aren't supposed to be. They are equals to every other citizen. They judge subjectively, representing the people. If they make a decision that doesn't align with the objective conclusion a specialist sees, that's still allowed. Democracy is created with awareness of these kinds of 'mistakes'. See Aristotle's writing on democracy, and its benefits and pitfalls. It doesn't seem right sometimes, but it's a choice the US people have made actively.
avarious 14y ago
Isn't a patent by its very definition "technical" in nature? Thereby requiring some technical know-how of the patents in question to adequately judge the case?

ohashi 14y ago

"Just that due to patent exhaustion Apple was exempt from infringement." Could you explain that?

VanL 14y ago

Umm, you are mistaken. Yes, they found there was patent exhaustion. They also found that the patents were not infringed. Exhaustion is a completely separate issue from infringement.

cube13 14y ago
If they found that there was patent exhaustion, Apple could not have been guilty of infringing on the patents. The exhaustion doctrine is pretty clear on this.
- VanL 14y ago
  Patent exhaustion is about liability for infringement, not infringement itself.

spartango 14y ago

I'm strongly with you on (1). As people working within technology, we really want this case to be about a technical point which has some objectively correct conclusion. The reality is that the US justice system doesn't work this way, and wasn't designed to. It's not technocratic in the way it reaches a verdict. The jury are not specialists, and aren't supposed to be. They are equals to every other citizen. They judge subjectively, representing the people. If they make a decision that doesn't align with the objective conclusion a specialist sees, that's still allowed. Democracy is created with awareness of these kinds of 'mistakes'. See Aristotle's writing on democracy, and its benefits and pitfalls. It doesn't seem right sometimes, but it's a choice the US people have made actively.

avarious 14y ago

Isn't a patent by its very definition "technical" in nature? Thereby requiring some technical know-how of the patents in question to adequately judge the case?