Holy crap. Prior art was disregarded because the Apple patented methods couldn't run on the old hardware:

>"And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."

Wut.

Yep, it was all a farce, for variety of reasons[0]. This Hogan guy, as the foreman, probably fucked things up the most, with his "knowledge" about patents. There was probably some pro-Apple fanboyism in the mix too.

0: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486

From that article:

> > Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?

> I think so. But let's not say me specifically.