Re: Of course the fact that they had just spent
Steve Todd:"Unfortunately for Samsung the test is "no reasonable jury" would have made the decision that they did"
The juries own statements establish this was not a 'reasonable jury' as jury's are meant to be formed and act and everything they decided is open to challenge.
Unfortunately for Apple and Apple fanbois the problem here is the jury justified their decisions based on the lack of prior art, prior art the court withheld from them. If they'd just shut their mouths it would probably end with 'no reasonable jury' but they A: established prior art is too important to be excluded the way it was, B: raised enough questions about jury corruption that A will get considered as a side effect.
So the question becomes: if all the prior art was seen what would a 'reasonable jury' decide. And this jury is no guide to that because they don't look remotely like a 'reasonable jury'.
This is going to retrial. That's not that interesting though, the real issue here is whether this threatens the rest of the Android world. As the days pass, as I consider it more, it seems less important. Samsung aren't innocent and certainly aren't as skilled at surfing right on the edge of what's legally permissable as Google showed in Oracle vs Google.
Android was created by an entity more aware of what they could get away with and with more ability to fight the nonsense patents Apple are using. The real battle hasn't begun and it will be brutal and hopefully put us back 30 years to a world where innovation has to be real to survive the market, not imposed by a parasitic legal system.