View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Doo who wrote (466418)	1/27/2021 5:36:01 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 540852

Unfortunately, this is often the case I think: They don't always follow the law as they are instructed to do, but they usually get it right when they come to a verdict. I once read, with great fascination, an interview done with the jury foreman on one of the big Apple/Samsung cases. It was the most astonishing thing to read, because he was literally boasting about how once the jury sequestered, he set about convincing them that Samsung was guilty! It turned out, he himself had a patent, that (IIRC) had been involved in litigation (which was partly why the other jurors selected him as the foreman) and given his history, he had a bent towards "proving" infringement. So that is what he set about doing. But the flip side of the coin in that trial would have been "proving" that Apple's patent wasn't valid due to prior art. It would have been fine for him to have offered up the best possible side for Apple to his peers, if he had then also done the same for Samsung. But he didn't. After reading the interview, I was astonished that Samsung didn't promptly try to use that to nullify the verdict.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next