, GoddersUK wrote

hmmm... I'm distinguishing from a third category here of "deliberately intended to infringe". That said I can see why the legal system would (and possibly should) treat them the same. 

"Deliberately intended to infringe" is the same as malicious infringement.

At his answer about the patent system - that is one of the most ridiculous politician style side stepping answers I've ever read. He did not answer the question put to him. I can only assume this means his answer to the question is "No but I know everyone will hate me if I say that".

I read it to mean exactly the opposite - i.e. "Yes, the patent system is completely broken, but if I say that, Samsung will use that as grounds for an appeal claiming that I wasn't impartial".

What he really said was "Even if the patent system is broken, it is the job of congress and the president to discuss it with the public and come up with a new system. It was not the job of the jury to decide if the patent system was broken. It was the job of the jury to decide if Samsung infringed Apple's patents, and that's what we did".