To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The suggestion that an American jury employed what amounts to legal protectionism to render a verdict is ludicrous and offensive.
What more likely happened is that they fudged some details on the jury instructions (and mind you -- none that would've changed the game or the conclusion radically, it just makes a lot of damages need to be recalculated).
FYI: The Judge in this case didn't say "half of these damages are inherently wrong", she said half of these damages need to be recalculated based off of an incorrect application of jury instructions.
I'd like to see how you do sitting on such a high profile jury, with a complex case, and spawling instructions that span a ton of pages. This isn't easy stuff, and the blame should frankly be put on both companies for bloating the process and confusing the Jury, and likely the Judge for not putting her foot down in a more concrete manner.
Make no mistake about it though, both companies asked for a Jury trial. Samsung hoped they could use the complexity angle to their advantage the same way Apple did. One prevailed, one didn't.
I dont think the Jury acted with malice, and I don't think a new damages trial will come to a wildly different conclusion.
Apple is well regarded in the US but so is Samsung. Almost irrationally so.




Member since:
2006-01-07
Thom said:
It's almost as if the bunch of random people in this jury had no clue what they were doing in what is possibly the most complex patent trial in history.
"Almost?" The reality is that probably not a single person on the jury had a clue about the legal aspects of this case. They found Samsung guilty because it's a foreign company, and Apple is as American as apple pie. The jury didn't understand what the case was really about, and couldn't care less. All Apple had to do was wave the flag, and the jury ate it up.
My great hope is that Samsung returns the favor to Apple in a Korean court. Tit for tat is the only thing that patent trolls like Apple and Microsoft understand.
Edited 2013-03-03 01:34 UTC