A pre-examination is the start of the case. . . which Apple won. Again you do not understand. All a pre-examination requires is that someone, even an anonymous someone, can claim I have evidence that there are pre-existing technologies that date from before the claimed patent application that would invalidate this patent. They merely have to CLAIM they exist. That claim is then opened for a full re-examination by the Patent Office.
Those claims of prior art were the very things YOU point to and it turned out the anonymous complainant was Samsung, a known multiple patent infringer (it's their stock in trade see the lawsuits they've had filed against them by Pioneer, Dyson, RCA, and a host of other Consumer Electronics and Appliance companies for ripping off their patents and designs), desperately trying to de-rail the lawsuit in California. The patent office found that "prior art" not vaild for these claims—to the surprise of the ignorant pundits who thought, like you, it was, because they had not bothered to READ THE DAMN PATENT CLAIMS in question.
Apple prevailed on all 19 issues that were raised by Samsung. All 19. The pundits were surprised because they simply did not understand what it was that Apple had invented. . . just as YOU don't.
And a San Fransisco Jury? OMG. Samsung lost when the case was filed in that Venue. They should have demanded a change in Venue.
Samsung lost to a very technically minded jury, not in San Francisco, but a Federal Court in Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County, not San Francisco County.
The Foreman of that jury had been a previous employee of Microsoft. Another member of the jury was a current management employee of Google. More than half of the jury had degrees in tech fields. More than half the jurors were Android phone users. The jurors knew what they were doing. The Judge in the case, Lucy Koh is a Korean-American who kept making rulings against Apple and for Samsung (and after the trial verdict, knocked $300 million off the Jury's award of more than $1.2 Billion to Apple!). . . and still Samsung, a South Korean company tech company, lost. SHEESH!
Diogenes, You are going to have to change your Freepname. You are not looking for honesty; YOU are looking for Dis-honesty in everything. . . and you see dishonesty in everything. . . especially in everything Apple is associated with. You assume that everything Apple does or claims is dishonest or nefarious. Why is that? I think you project what YOU would do if you were in their position. Sad.
And this is supposed to be reassuring that the jury would not subjectively favor Apple?
You assume that everything Apple does or claims is dishonest or nefarious.
No, I don't. I just think that in this case they exaggerate their claims because it makes them money and increases their prestige. It may be good business, but it is not good ethics, which does incline me to believe it is indeed a legacy of Steve Jobs.
This sort of behavior would appear to have his fingerprints all over it.