FullBurstMode
Distinguished
- May 23, 2011
- 23
- 0
- 18,510
I like how some people make the jury out to be an omniscient infallible force of justice. The verge put it well, "So, just to be clear, when faced with 700 decisions the jury was good to go. But when faced with two decisions, they need some guidance." - They awarded Apple damages on products that didn't infringe and then were baffled when this was brought up. Minor amounts in the grand scheme of of the one billion plus but it immediately casts at least some sort of doubt on the jury's ability to make important decisions like this (the judge had to leave the room to write explicit instructions on the two issues).
Also I'm a little skeptical of any group of people being able to come to a unanimous decision on over 700 points to consider in only two days. Then you consider the fact that different outcomes have been reached elsewhere (Apple have been ordered to apologise to Samsung in the UK, Apple are appealing - so many room for puns) and you realise it's not black and white as some people claim.
On the issue of patents, the issue is that patents shouldn't stifle adoption and innovation which is what Apple are doing with their draconian adoption of patents on all sorts of things (in part, the fault lies with the current patent system which is why people are up in arms about it). People throw the word innovation around seemingly without knowing what it really means (spoilers, not everything Apple does is innovation despite what some would claim).
“Regardless of the outcome of the trial, we might want to step back and consider whether society should be granting such powerful rights so easily. Are the features at issue here really deserving of so much protection?” asked Robin Feldman, a legal scholar at UC Hastings College of the Law and author of Rethinking Patent Law. “On the whole, the trial is one more indication of a patent system that has lost its bearings, with litigation rather than innovation leading the way.”
Also I'm a little skeptical of any group of people being able to come to a unanimous decision on over 700 points to consider in only two days. Then you consider the fact that different outcomes have been reached elsewhere (Apple have been ordered to apologise to Samsung in the UK, Apple are appealing - so many room for puns) and you realise it's not black and white as some people claim.
On the issue of patents, the issue is that patents shouldn't stifle adoption and innovation which is what Apple are doing with their draconian adoption of patents on all sorts of things (in part, the fault lies with the current patent system which is why people are up in arms about it). People throw the word innovation around seemingly without knowing what it really means (spoilers, not everything Apple does is innovation despite what some would claim).
“Regardless of the outcome of the trial, we might want to step back and consider whether society should be granting such powerful rights so easily. Are the features at issue here really deserving of so much protection?” asked Robin Feldman, a legal scholar at UC Hastings College of the Law and author of Rethinking Patent Law. “On the whole, the trial is one more indication of a patent system that has lost its bearings, with litigation rather than innovation leading the way.”
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram