Groklaw on Apple v Samsung
PARCtab, a Xerox research project from the 1990s.
Photo ©2006, Adam Greenfield.
Look in Elin Rønby Pedersen’s design portfolio
for their tablet and whiteboard.
Or, what open source intellectual property blogger PJ said.
Coverage at Groklaw. More Groklaw. There were irregularities in the jury’s decision process, and this has already caused the judge to reduce the settlement, and may ultimately lead to its being set aside.
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury’s verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here’s the jury’s Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here’s the original [PDF]. Here’s the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? “Please let the jury know,” they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, “of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on.”
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn’t infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they’d ruled didn’t infringe at all.