>http://www.google.com/patents?id=XjGoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>Apparently he patented the HDD.
>
>This is the same guy who said they "didn't consider prior art,
>(because) it was bogging us down."

You're mind is too twisted to make sense of the monumental ass kicking you just took.

You find a pull quote from one article that does not present the entire interview and then you make the conclusion that the jury decided to skip something and never to answer it.

Seems like other quotes from interviews, and the fucking verdict form it self, shows that they DID consider prior art.

http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html#ixzz24lRhRyY7

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

You're madder than a Republican who lost an election because of the "negro vote."

Honestly, stop reading Reddit and Gizmodo for a week, go outside, talk to some humans, take that BM you so desperately need, think about the universe and then come back and post like a HUMAN.