Comment by nchmy
9 hours ago
Just because apple provides a (likely) self-serving statement, doesn't mean it is accurate. Evidently the jury found it to not be convincing
9 hours ago
Just because apple provides a (likely) self-serving statement, doesn't mean it is accurate. Evidently the jury found it to not be convincing
The jury found Apple innocent the first time, when Taction agreed not the same technology.
So the article doesn't explain why it was appealed, then found shady on appeal.
it's a weird article, worth reading.
Chatbot says (so take it for what it’s worth) the first time the judge threw it out.
Appeals said that was inappropriately based on narrowing the claim too far and excluding expert testimony.
Second time a jury heard the whole thing, and found Apple infringed.
Also, “The jury did not find the infringement willful. Apple said it will appeal.”
useful info though. i guess we'll see eventually.