blair003: So you are saying that the jury wasn't allowed to consider prior art, but Samsung entered prior art into evidence and the judge allowed prior art to be entered into evidence because in all cases both parties bring as much evidence as possible, even evidence that is not allowed to be considered?
No, I'm not saying that. All evidence is good. I see the issue is that the lawmakers make the law. The judiciary enforces that law, they cannot make a new law. Thus, the vailidity of the patent system or a particular patent would have to be very well contended for the judiciary to interpret against it. I dont disagree that the patent system, at least for todays IT is not ideal, but a court cannot override the law unless it was so compelling that allows an interpretation to be taken that way. I also have to ask myself this. The IT industry all use patents, and heavily. Was it Novell that was going under, causing companies to rush it to buy it, just for patents? They all use them, rightly or wrongly. And, I have not seen the IT industry lobbying over the unfair patent system. If they have, its been low key, if at all. If that had been a big push in recent years, that may well have diluted this case, but as I see it, they all use it, legal suits over this have always been common, and this case is nothing really new.
I hope that an apeall will dilute the case, throw out the injunctions, and everyone will move on. If there is an issue over patent law in IT, then IT needs to lobby to get it brought into the current times.