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.
Thread beginning with comment 533922
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Incompetent, but ...
by rinzai on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:06 UTC
rinzai
Member since:
2011-05-11

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?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Incompetent, but ...
by woegjiub on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:15 in reply to "Incompetent, but ..."
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Incompetent, but ...
by arb1 on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:27 in reply to "RE: Incompetent, but ..."
arb1 Member since:
2011-08-19

"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

RE[2]: Incompetent, but ...
by Lorin on Wed 5th Sep 2012 13:11 in reply to "RE: Incompetent, but ..."
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Last time I checked feature aggregation is not patentable

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Incompetent, but ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:16 in reply to "Incompetent, but ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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?


If it was just as flawed as this one, of course. This is a very important trial, and the voices would be just as loud - if not louder, due to Apple's vocal fanbase - as they are now.

Reply Parent Score: 8

v RE[2]: Incompetent, but ...
by Tony Swash on Wed 5th Sep 2012 17:30 in reply to "RE: Incompetent, but ..."
RE: Incompetent, but ...
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:19 in reply to "Incompetent, but ..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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.


I'd rather verdicts being discarded by jury incompetence than by plaintiff or defendant's pocket depth.

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?


If the foreman made similar decisions, I wouldn't oppose a re-trial. Actually, I think the people against software and design patents in general would prefer no lawsuits based on patents at all, no matter who fired first.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Incompetent, but ...
by rinzai on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:31 in reply to "RE: Incompetent, but ..."
rinzai Member since:
2011-05-11

Yes, I agree.

The best scenario would have been no trial at all.

I am far from being an expert in this field (possibly even worst than the foreman!) but something that always intrigued me is how Apple, Inc. takes a de-facto, successful design (ie. laptop design: rectangular foldable computer with screen and keyboard separated) and has no problem with it!

They didn't "invent" the laptop but are quite happy at selling their own.

Please correct me if I'm seeing this from the wrong angle...

Edited 2012-09-05 11:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Incompetent, but ...
by JAlexoid on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:27 in reply to "Incompetent, but ..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If Samsung were found not to have diluted iPhone's trade dress you would hear a big WTF from me.

Fair is fair. I don't think that that jury was fair. Simply because Apple had an advocate in the ranks of the jury.

He also acknowledged the fact that people don't like it. He also said that if you don't like it then have a public discussion on the matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

If Samsung were found not to have diluted iPhone's trade dress you would hear a big WTF from me.


I am really confused by all of this "trade dress" talk. I find that a great many products look almost identical, yet I never hear of this dispute in any other field.

Cars, toasters, televisions, etc. They all look the same to me - I have to look at the nameplate to figure out the brand. (In fact, I think almost all televisions look much more similar to each other than iPhones and Galaxies.)

The only exception I can think of like this is designer handbags. Actually, now that I think about it, there are similarities there (high profit margins, hype generation, litigiousness). But is that really the model we want to base our society/economy on?

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: Incompetent, but ...
by WereCatf on Wed 5th Sep 2012 11:33 in reply to "Incompetent, but ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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?


As others are saying I too would call for re-trial. I do admit that I dislike Apple really deeply and I very much enjoy Samsung-hardware, but when it comes to software and design patents I do not want to see such glaring mistakes being made, those would just open the future for even bigger of a mess. No, as much as I'd love to see Samsung prevail I see it much more important that court rulings are in-depth, competent and very, very clear-cut.

Reply Parent Score: 2