Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 10:43 UTC
Legal "This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is still talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict. Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination. That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question." Together with the earlier reports, it's quite clear by now this jury messed up completely. If a device with a keyboard can be found to infringe iPhone design patents, then everything can. This verdict should be flushed down the crapper.
Permalink for comment 533927
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Incompetent, but ...
by arb1 on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Incompetent, but ..."
Member since:

"As many other people, I was very disappointed with this verdict and I see that the foreman clearly does not have an understanding of the issues at hand.

My problem is that turning trials based on jury's "competence" is, to me, a very very *very* slippery slope.

I opens the doors to any verdict being discarded by whoever disagrees with it.

That's one of the flaws of the jury system, IMO.

Not flaming or defending any of the sides that went to court, but genuinely curious:

If the verdict was in favour of Samsung, would all the voices against the foreman still be calling for a re-trial due to jury's not being fit for purpose?

That depends.
If there were a reasonable argument as to which things were infringement, and did not have prior art, I would agree with those calling foul.
As is, the fact that the patents are essentially all invalid due to being too broad, too obvious, or having prior art, means that because the job of the jury was to rule on the patents, they should have declared them all invalid.

Samsung did copy, that is undeniable.
However, it's not about the little things they are suing for, because everyone else had already done everything individually before Apple.
All apple did was put them together in a nice, neat package.

Yea with ever word the head juror has spoken on how they came to their verdict you hear how bad they screwed up. Clearly admitting not following the jury instructions. Saying its not their job to look at the patent if it was valid or not. Really this was all down hill.
Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

When one juror was quoted that case was clearly blown that you could tell juror's tossed out all options of prior art.

As for Samsung design wise coping apple, there was that media player that Samsung released about 1 year before the Iphone that looked pretty similar of design, yea it was an mp3 player but design looks pretty close to me.

I remember one of the juror's said after day 1 they knew who they were siding with, that right there is not right as jury is supposed to hear ALL the facts before deciding not after day 1.

Edited 2012-09-05 11:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3