I think that you and jasonlotito are talking past one another. Lets assume that the following are the questions: 1. Looking at prior art, did Apple create

I think that you and jasonlotito are talking past one another. Lets assume that the following are the questions: 1. Looking at prior art, did Apple create original Patents X, Y, Z? 2. Did Samsung violate Patent X, Y, Z? 3. Which phones violate the patent? 4. How much money should Apple get for each violation? If you instead answer the questions as follows: 1. Samsung violated Patents Y and Z 2. Phones X, Y, Z violate patents Y and Z 3. Apple should get $X, $Y, and $Z for each phone. 4. The prior art does indicate that Apple did not create an original product. The ordering of those answers leaves out important information for the decision on previous questions. In this case most importantly: that the prior art has a bearing on whether or not Samsung actually violated Apples patents. >"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ... "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same This is the evidence to support that conclusion. From: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390