Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:38 UTC
Legal Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict. "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement. Come on. This is farce." My favourite inconsistency: a Samsung phone with a keyboard, four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.
Thread beginning with comment 532364
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What were the Jurors thinking?
by Tony Swash on Sun 26th Aug 2012 09:20 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:

In a pair of reports from Reuters and CNET, jury foreman Velvin Hogan and juror Manuel Ilagan described what went on behind closed doors as the nine-member group deliberated the landmark verdict. Their remarks make it plain that there deliberations were rational and considered but the verdict was pretty easy to reach because the evidence was so clear cut.

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apple's arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room. He also said video testimony from senior Samsung executives made it "absolutely" clear to them that the infringement was purposeful.

We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough.We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."

Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.

We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan said.

As for Samsung's claims of infringement, Ilagan said the company lost the jury when it tried to leverage two UMTS wireless patents against Apple, one of which involved the communications chip in the iPhone and iPad. Apple refuted this specific claim and pointed to a Samsung licensing deal with Intel, the maker of the iDevice chips. The agreement stated that Samsung was not allowed to sue any company to which Intel sold that particular component, a licensing safeguard known as patent exhaustion.

Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same," Ilagan said. "Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."

Jurors felt Samsung should pay significant damages in the landmark patent trial against Apple, even though they viewed Apple's demands as too high, according to the foreman.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

At one point during the second day of deliberations, jurors turned off the lights in the room to settle a debate about the potential influence screen brightness might have on Apple's graphics interface. Their verdict: Apple's designs were unique.

"All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another," Hogan said.

Reply Score: -1

porcel Member since:

What exactly does your post add to the conversation?

Are the jurors going to come out and admit openly that they are inherently biased against Apple, because one is an American company and the other a Korean one?

Are they going to admit that they have no understanding of technology?

Trade dress patents, really? Is that what the technology world has come down to?

Only thing this has proven is that Apple and Microsoft are not able to compete on a leveled playing field.

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

I am done with this pathetic debate and the iClueless fashionistas.

Edited 2012-08-26 14:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

bassbeast Member since:

Oh give it the hell up already! Here we are, in the middle of a conversation about Apple VS Samsung, and what do we get? A butthurt FOSS zealot screaming about "Teh ebil M$"!

Dude where have you been for the past half a fricking decade? MSFT is the new IBM, with a market that is flatline and gonna stay that way, hence why we have Ballmer throwing the Hail Mary with Win 8 "LOL I Iz A Cellphone LOL" play, yet here you are STILL whining like its 1997! Give it up Sparky, you didn't have a product the people wanted,and on the desktop you STILL don't, so they went elsewhere simple as that. I'll even hand you a link from a Red hat dev that says the Linux desktop is "suckage" and "in its death throes" for you to ponder..

Now back to the ACTUAL topic...welcome to the future, the land of the lawyers. This is what happens when you have an out of control patent office that will let you patent anything! Everyone in IT knows we stand on the shoulders of giants only now we have tollbooths everywhere. I mean screens with bezels? Really? Wanna know why Asia is gonna kick the USA's behind this is it in a nutshell, they can build on previous ideas without tapdancing through a legal minefield to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

Don't kid yourself. Sure, MS did play dirty (who wouldn't, in such position?), but they were also simply the most sensible choice out of all not-so-great ones ( ); and network effects mean that we naturally gravitated to one dominant market player.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:

Even though I agree on the $1bn "fine" and think that Samsung management should be smacked with a $1bn sack of money; I can't dismiss all the subtle hints that the utility patent part of the was largely skipped over.

Fair is fair, and it seems that in the complex case the jury went for the easy part(designs and trade dress) and skipped the technical one(utility patents).

Also, technically the jury compared the effect of the utility patents, not what should be compared - how they do it.(Utility patents don't cover what, it's the how)

PS: Where is your disgust that they did not find, a currently banned, GTab 10.1 to infringe on iPad design?

Reply Parent Score: 2