Oklahoma Schools Destroyed by Tornado Lacked ‘Safe Rooms’
Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can’t Be Sued for Fraud
Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
E&O Insights: Restaurant and Tavern Risks
CEA’s First CIO Reflects C-Suite Trend
Golf and Country Clubs Weather the Storm
Midwest AGs Go After Storm-Chasing Roofing CompaniesFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
Wait…
Samsung’s attorneys were okay with the jury foreman being a patent-owner himself???
What were they thinking?
What a stupid Apple-leaning article. Trying to paint Apple as a moral and innocent defender from the aggressor Samsung. We all know what kind of arrogant company Apple is.
Why didn’t you mention how Apple photoshopped pictures of the Galaxy Tab to have the same dimensions as the iPad as one of its exhibits in court? And why are you trying to make it sound like Apple invented everything under the sun related to smartphones? As if the iPhone wasn’t a ripoff of the LG Prada, and as if BlackBerry, Palm, and Nokia weren’t already selling for years devices with most, if not all of the “features” the iPhone had (you weren’t about to say Apple invented apps or the icons-in-a-grid were you?)
This case showed the world just how broken the American patent system is (and yet with every new trade agreement like the TPP we seek to export this broken system to every modern country in the world). And it was decided by a biased jury apparently heavily influenced by a foreman holder of a vague tech patent. There are many indications that the jury did not follow instructions, assigned damages for non-infringing products, and ignored key issues such as prior art (it was, and I quote, “bogging them down”). I think the decision will be overturned, but if it should stand it will only mean less choice, slower innovation and higher prices for consumers. Software patents should be eliminated in their entirety.