Actually no. Unless you can prove he is specifically biased for or against Apple or Samsung, there is no conflict of interest. His experience can actually make him a better jury member. The assumption would be that he can make a better informed decision on a patent case.
Obviously the prior art that was shown wasn't substantially similar enough to warrant a discussion or Samsung didn't prove it well enough. Which is why they skipped it.
After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.
Here's the abstract:
If you honestly and truly believe that this is not covered by the video and/or prior art then there's no convincing you.
The fact that he is a patent troll isn't enough?
Oh please. Anybody that patents an invention is now a troll?
When another company puts your invention into mass production several years before you "invent it", yes that makes you a troll.
When another company puts your invention into mass production several years before you "invent it", yes that makes you a troll.
Galaxy Nexus was temporarily banned not for looking like an iPhone but for unified search.
Koh found that the Nexus is "no more than colorably different" and, as such, infringes on Apple's "slide to unlock" patent.
So if it's such a sure thing that Apple's in the right, why is being tried in a court other than one in their backyard, with a judge that's already ruled in their favor "a disadvantage"?So Apple should put themselves at a disadvantage in their court cases? What type of logic is that?
No one's going anywhere. I just got my patent for "turn key to unlock." Now everyone has to pay me if they want to leave from anywhere.BRB, filing a patent on the wheel and the lever. Don't let that judge and those jurors go anywhere until I get there.
What invention was put into mass production before Apple patenting it?
Samsung won in UK lost in Germany. But of course to you that means the won in European courts. LOL. The point is this issue isn't as black & white as you'd like to paint it.Judge Koh is a complete retard. Wish this was handled by Judge Posner instead. It's amazing that Apple lost in European courts but won here. What an embarrassment for our legal system. Can't wait until Apple has to put up on it's UK website that Samsung didn't copy them.
http://gizmodo.com/5922519/apple-convinces-the-courts-to-block-the-galaxy-nexus
Her quote:
The Nexus and its features are a lot more than "colorably different" than the iPhone. It's an example of the Judge's bias, and obvious tech-cluelessness.
Apple's slide to unlock patent is ridiculous, as well as unified search. Apple didn't invent any of these things and should have no business dictating to others. Again, just another example of how Apple has managed to abuse the patent system.
Samsung won in UK lost in Germany. But of course to you that means the won in European courts. LOL. The point is this issue isn't as black & white as you'd like to paint it.
In the UK the only patent that stood was bounce back but that was limited in scope. Samsung then argued that Apples claims caused material harm so the judge ordered Apple to print a statement in the media states Samsung did not copy. They also have to have this statement on their website for 6 but the ruling is currently under appeal though so we will see if holds. Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384.
This tweet pretty much sums it up
The measure of Apple's achievement: what was unimaginable in 2006 now seems so obvious that people claim Apple should have no patents.
This tweet pretty much sums it up
The measure of Apple's achievement: what was unimaginable in 2006 now seems so obvious that people claim Apple should have no patents.
Multi-touch seen at TED in 2006, unimaginable before Apple patented it. Rounded icons in 2006? Never before seen in history and unimaginable before 2006.
Slide to unlock? Already ruled as trivial in Europe due to prior art, unimaginable before Apple patented it.
So, in your opinion, it has to be mass produced in order to be legit?Which of those technologies were in mass production before the iPhone?
Unified search
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/29/apple-lands-preliminary-ban-against-samsung-galaxy-nexus/
Some serious crying going on. Apple owns patents, get over it until they're invalidated.
This tweet pretty much sums it up
The measure of Apple's achievement: what was unimaginable in 2006 now seems so obvious that people claim Apple should have no patents.
Back around 2000 I was the lead software developer for a company that produced legal research software. I designed an interface that searched both local content and web content and comingled the results. It's a pretty obvious concept to anyone who isn't an idiot. I can understand why Apple fanatics believe Apple invented it.
So, in your opinion, it has to be mass produced in order to be legit?