Reshared post from +Dan Gillmor

It's the type of "invention" only a lawyer could love. It's like if you "invented" the wheel because your wheel was exactly 26.6" in diameter and 8.3" wide with seven spokes, whereas all other wheels were of slightly different sizes and with a different number of spokes.

Reshared post from +Forbes

Should the law have protected Apple, the world's richest company, or should jurors have made a stand for the consumer?

This year however, both +General Motors and +Chrysler have said thanks but no thanks to the Obama and Romney camps. Between now and election day, the candidates are not welcome to pay any visits. Given that both companies were bailed out in 2008-9 and the US Treasury still owns 26% of GM, neither is anxious to be thrown into the middle of the political debate. No matter which side of the aisle you stand on, visits are potential no-win scenarios for both companies and neither can afford to alienate potential customers. 

The more "accessible" $50K version will only go half as far and won't accelerate as rapidly, although performance is more than adequate.

Reshared post from +Motor Trend Magazine

In a world exclusive, we tested and attempted to verify the +Tesla Motors  Model S' range. Would its 265 mile range give you range anxiety? http://bit.ly/NWjI8x

Reshared post from +Jim Fawcette

Jury Forman Decisions Questioned in Apple-Samsung Case
Outside lawyers predict this case will go to the US Supreme Court

Fortunately, some jurors in the Apple-Samsung case are talking so we can get some insight into their thinking, and legal experts are raising serious questions we didn't read about in the wave of early press.

For example, the foreman said he wanted to punish Samsung for copying Apple Inc's designs. That means the foreman either didn't read the jury instructions, or decided to ignore them. The jurors' instructions twice tell them that only real damages can be awarded and money is not to be used to punish the company sued. 

A second juror says that there was a heated discussion about prior art, until the jury foreman essentially told them he was an expert because he was an engineer that held a patent, and that Samsung had infringed. The the debate on prior art was cut off. 

Also, the jury's judgment is full of odd contradictions and errors. Awards were given to Apple Inc. for products that were not found in violation, and even adjusting for those items, the money awarded doesn't add up properly.

Finally, the jury found that the Galaxy Tab, a device that looks quite similar to an iPad, was found to not infringe, even though the Epic 4G, a phone with a slide-out keyboard, curved top and bottom, different camera placement, different button and speaker placement, does infringe on Apple patents. 

I'm sympathetic with the plight of the jurors. Gawklaw noted that it took a lawyer three days to understand the jury instructions. Yet the jury reached a decision on the case in only three days. 

HT +William Shotts 

Stop the madness!