A patent trial in the backyard
of the complainant,
itself a patent troll,
an overwhelmed judge,
plus a jury foreman
who is himself
a holder of multiple patents?
LOL.
Pretty clear how that decision was going to go...and it predictably did.
The
BBC is skeptical about justice "made in Cupertino".
As Dan Gillmor writes at the Guardian
"A home-town jury has given Apple the world, or at least the United States, in its campaign to control the smart phone and tablet markets."
Take a look also at Nick Wingfield's article at the New York Times titled
Apple-Samsung Case Muddies the Future of Innovation
and his quote of the comments of the jury foreman.
Is the idea there that the role of juries is no longer to decide particular cases but rather to send THEIR "clear messages" to the rest of the world?
It is a novel view of the role of the jury in the legal system and most certainly not our idea of how the law should work, thank you.
At
ars technica Jacqui Cheng writes:
"Samsung wrote to its employees, "The [Northern District of California]
verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other
countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea,
which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These
courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts
and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary
means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the
pursuit of innovation.""
Thankfully, "the world" and not the USA is the ultimate market, and in that world, this absurd US trial decision in the long term will be a bane and not a blessing to one of the world's most despicable monopolists and labor abusers. Just read the editorials at
Engadget.
A win for Apple?
No, rather universal disgust.
Will users like us ever buy Apple products?
Never.
See
Patents, Apple, Samsung, Koh's Court & Jury, Poker and the Sucker: Guess Who?
