Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @04:36PM (#4433206)

I don't buy that. A projector is a display, right? Otherwise this sentence would be possible: "I showed my powerpoint the the executive board without using a display".

Either way it doesn't seem relevant since it is capacitive and display-covering transparent capacitive panels have been in existence since at least 1983. (Bob Boie, Bell Labs)

If it was relevant, shouldn't Samsung be in the clear for their AMOLED displays since the patent only mentions LCDs? (elsewhere in the doc)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by skue on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:14PM (#4433321)

You realize you are making the OP's point?

He alluded to HN posters who make broad IP statements without the experience or training to back them up. I'm not arguing the other side -- I was just trying to point out that the issue may be more complex than you assume. Take of that what you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:28PM (#4433376)

I haven't made any IP statements, broad or otherwise.

I agree that the issue is surely complex. It does seem fair to assume that I can use logic and literacy to at least isolate the items I don't understand. If you look a few comments down, we seem to have reached that point.

[ Parent | on HN ]