What a circus. The minute it was reported that the jury were instructed NOT to consider prior art, if this related to products only sold outside the US, my conclusion was that the trial was tainted. The whole absurd affair should be thrown out. Such a waste of money only the legal profession could love.
When there is that much money, impact, legal precedent and media attention it can't help but be an interesting trial/outcome.. I wonder what the impact on Samsung's products will be, does anyone know what this will result in?
Apparently the jury didn't miscalculate.
"Because the court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury..."
So the amount of the damages could reasonably go up as well as go down. They fact that she lowered the amount seems not relevant if a new jury is simply going to recalculate.
The legal analysis I read shortly after the close pointed out that the jury had deferred in a large part to one of their members who was in the process of defending his own patents. This fellow said several things about the deliberation to the media only days after the trial all of which violated the judges instructions. One of those rules was for the jury not to seek punitive damages. He said "Samsung should be punished for their infringements".
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.