Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Wi-LAN Inc. (T.WIN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BMWIN who wrote (16487)	10/24/2013 4:01:50 PM
From: P2V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16863

Same Jurisdiction, two Juries given the illogical task of evaluating patent claims. Did you note from my previous post, that the MCDSS patent has been sent back to the USPTO for reexaminatioin ? Message 29187538

To: BMWIN who wrote (16487)	10/24/2013 4:39:23 PM
From: P2V	Respond to of 16863

Hope you aren't using the LG case as an example to be followed by Judges :-)

To: BMWIN who wrote (16487)	10/24/2013 7:17:26 PM
From: Mariana	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16863

I'm in total disbelief, as I was in the last trial - to come to the realization, as a layman, that the U.S. or ANY Court system considers a random selection of ordinary people put together to form a jury - is thought to be a jury of "peers". We have a bunch of highly educated, highly specialized technical people with inventions and technologies that very few can understand or even pronounce - and we have a gaggle of highly trained, experienced, and technical lawyers on both sides, each of which is trying to sway the jury in their favor. Then we have the judge and his instructions to the jury( which I went thru several times) which nearly require a lawyer to go thru. How in God's name can anyone expect a fair trial, or even an informed, knowledgeable, decision-making process, in order to determine a proper decision? It's the legal process and policy that needs the overhaul. I'm also in disbelief that this type of stuff isn't questioned, and corrected by the many entities involved over the years. Jury of "peers". I truly hope that WIN appeals this case.