Thread

1. jjtheblunt · 1790445126 · focus · HN ↗

   from the article, Taction themselves agreed Apple's tech was different :

   "Apple's Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction's technology, which Taction's own testing of Apple's products confirmed during trial," Apple said in response

   1. nchmy · 1790445681 · focus · HN ↗

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

      1. jjtheblunt · 1790448622 · focus · HN ↗

         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.

         1. dd8601fn · 1790451955 · focus · HN ↗

            Chatbot says (so take it for what it’s worth) the first time the judge threw it out.

            Appeals said that was inappropriately based on narrowing the claim too far and excluding expert testimony.

            Second time a jury heard the whole thing, and found Apple infringed.

            Also, “The jury did not find the infringement willful. Apple said it will appeal.”

            1. jjtheblunt · 1790455889 · focus · HN ↗

               useful info though. i guess we'll see eventually.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.