That would be because they're selectively quoted, out of context, by a biased party.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
I hope you don't consider CNET biased. If anything, they are usually criticized for being Apple-biased.
And since they explicitly had to make the choice on the instructions (Y/N) on infringement, the safer assumption is that they did get back to it.
Given that they also have been quoted as not needing the jury instructions, actively ignored those instructions by indicating that the damages awarded were punitive rather than compensatory, and that they could have spent, at most, a few minutes on each of the hundreds of questions, it's hardly out of line to think that this verdict was rushed.
Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that's what they did, but equally there's no evidence to suggest that they eventually went back to that question and debated it further.
Given that they admitted to ignoring the instructions on punitive vs. compensatory damages, it's not a stretch to imagine they also ignored the instructions on coming to a unanimous decision.
For example, Jurors have the right to find a guy not guilty when caught red handed with marijuana simply because the law is unconstitutional. They have that right and that is intentional in our system. Judges on the other hand, tell jurors in their instructions that they "have to find them guilty if they believe he possessed the drugs". When judges do this, I consider it jury tampering, and unfortunately for innocent pot smokers, too many jurors listen to the instructions.
And justice required them to use the courts to "send a message" and punish Samsung with more than "just a slap on the wrist"?
Normally, their viewpoint is right in line with most of the tech world. It just so happens that this time around, the tech camp is pretty well split on who the good guy was in this case.
The reason you feel this way is because you're biased.
It's ok, I'm biased too.
The problem is, you guys seem to think that you can accuse anyone of being "biased" as if it were a counter argument that excuses you from the need to defend your points.
Here you're derailing the discussion because someone hat the temerity to speak the truth: Groklaw is biased. In fact, "biased" is being generous. They're driven by ideology to the point of being dishonest.
This article is a good example with their selective quoting and their lies about what was done.
For instance, the claim that the jurors had only 2 days to consider the evidence is a lie. They had the whole trial.
You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise.
Do you really think that people are upset about Samsung and Apple? They're upset about software patents and how ludicrously easy they are to get and yet how absurdly difficult they are to render invalid. The jury here says they decided (under the advice and guidance of a patent holder) to stop debating the prior art issue.
This is what we have a problem with.
For what it's worth, I think Samsung did attempt to copy Apple with its first round of phones and they did a damn poor job of it. Cheap knock offs looked like cheap knock offs, and I think they were made willfully. However, I think many of Apple's patents are invalid because they do not constitute real, protectable innovation.
If this were Samsung vs. HTC I'd be hoping for exactly the same outcome: a demonstration of the facile nature of software patents in the US. They do nothing to protect innovators; they only serve to artificially limit competition. For the sake of the industry and the economy I live and work in, they need to be radically reformed.
You were taking offense at the use of the word. I was, in a sense, agreeing with you, and asking you to recognize that bias does not mean lacking in credibility. It simply means having an opinion.
Bias is not the weapon that some on hacker news seem to think it is (and your position was one as if it had wounded you....)
Hope that makes it more clear!
From a dictionary.
> I was showing you how people on your side of the patent debate use the word, since you were on the, shall we say, receiving end of it this time.
No. You were burning down straw men.
> I was, in a sense, agreeing with you, and asking you to recognize that bias does not mean lacking in credibility.
It does, in fact, hurt credibility to be biased. When it stops being an opinion accompanied by honest reporting and becomes manipulation (be it deliberate or not) is usually where we start calling it bias.
> Hope that makes it more clear!
I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only assume this is part of some larger conversation you are having with everyone at once and no one in particular.
They said they skipped the question. They skipped the question. The contention was they skipped the question. You disagreed, and then agreed.
You are acting the part of a troll, and being purposefully obtuse, and dishonest.