alt Hacker NewsJust because apple provides a (likely) self-serving statement, doesn't mean it is accurate. Evidently the jury found it to not be convincing
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.