Today, I come across an interview with the Jury Foreman (the one who instruct Jury members) of recent Apple vs Samsung case in California. Here is a video:
My point is he said, "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
In my mind, if so, it follows naturally that since the software on Samsung phones cannot be placed on Apple's iCraps and vice versa, they also don't infringe Apple's patent. In other words, if some software that is not interchangable is not prior art (i.e. they are not the same thing), software that is not interchangable also does not infringe the patent of one another (i.e. they are not shameless copy).
Logged on Doughnut I/O. U.E. 1346770465.
My point is he said, "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
In my mind, if so, it follows naturally that since the software on Samsung phones cannot be placed on Apple's iCraps and vice versa, they also don't infringe Apple's patent. In other words, if some software that is not interchangable is not prior art (i.e. they are not the same thing), software that is not interchangable also does not infringe the patent of one another (i.e. they are not shameless copy).
Logged on Doughnut I/O. U.E. 1346770465.
Comments
Post a Comment