Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
from the rushing-to-get-things-done dept
Late Friday afternoon, the jury in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute surprised just about everyone by telling the court it had reached a verdict. Given the number of complex issues it needed to go through, most experts expected it to take well into this week. According to observers in the courtroom, one of Apple's lawyers was so surprised and unprepared that he had to rush back to court without a suit, and showed up in a polo shirt. The quickness of the decision certainly resulted in some questions about just how thoroughly the jury reviewed the instructions and then considered each of the approximately 700 questions it needed to answer (initial jury form is embedded below). As we noted in an update to our post on Friday, about half an hour after the ruling was read out -- and long after most of the press stopped paying attention -- the judge announced at least two problems with the ruling, where the jury had awarded damages, despite not finding infringement.As we said on Friday, that certainly raised significant questions about how carefully the jury actually reviewed the issues in question. While some said it could have just been a clerical error in answering all the questions, that appears not to be the case. Because after the judge instructed the jury to fix the mistakes, they didn't reassign those damages elsewhere, they just wiped them off the slate. Besides, even if you were to argue it was merely a mistake, that's no excuse. This "mistake" could have ended up costing millions of dollars. That's quite a "mistake."
Over at Groklaw, they're discussing this and other evidence of jury misconduct. The awarding of damages for things they found didn't infringe was already pretty bad, but some of the other details highlight how the jury clearly did not read the jury instructions (or bother to comprehend them).
A Reuters interview with the jury foreman demonstrates conclusively that the jury ignored the rules. Foreman Velvin Hogan told Reuters that they wanted to punish Samsung:
"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."That sounds nice, except... patent awards are only supposed to be about making the patent holder whole, not about punishing the infringer. And, in fact, the jury instructions clearly stated this:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.And yet here's the jury foreman flat out admitting that they decided to use the award amounts to punish Samsung. Elsewhere, it becomes pretty clear that Hogan was hardly an impartial juror. He has his own patent, 7,352,953 on "recording and storing video information." That, by itself, does not automatically make one biased in favor of the system (I know plenty of people with patents who hate the patent system), but he admitted elsewhere that he ended up making decisions based on how he would feel if it was his patent at stake, rather than on what the law actually says -- and then said he needed to rule as if he were speaking out "for all" patent holders. In an an interview with Bloomberg, he made that bias clear:
“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”He then told Bloomberg that "he explained his thinking to his fellow jurors" and that seemed to drive the discussion. An interview with another juror, over at News.com, confirmed that Hogan's views focused the jury, with one juror admitting that they just started ignoring prior art, because that question was too time consuming. Seriously.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...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."Yeah. Read that sucker again. The jury instructions are again clear that the jury needs to consider the prior art, but according to this juror, Manuel Ilagan, after foreman Hogan talked about his own experience with patents, they decided that prior art was "bogging us down" and they might as well "skip" it.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
In the long run, the jury verdict probably won't matter much, because this case would have been appealed no matter what. But these kinds of stories certainly give Samsung plenty of fodder to ask the judge to toss out the jury verdict already. It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jury, make whole, mistakes, patents, prior art, punishment, velvin hogan
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...
Attorneys are generally barred from making "Golden Rule" arguments, i.e. asking jurors to put themselves in plaintiff's shoes. Damages are supposed to be compensatory and objective, so an attorney's Golden Rule argument is pretty much manifestly improper. This objectivity requirement is made clear to jurors as well.
Dunno if we'll see JNOV, mistrial, or what, but I've got $5 this case is not yet heading to the appeals court. Stuff to be dealt with below first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...
I've been reading Grokster today in between court sessions and shown a fair few solicitors here.. Their first thought and exclamation was basically the same as mine.
WTF!!! sheeeeeeeeiiiiiittttttttt!!! (or words to that effect depending on the decorum needed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I liken it to the time vortex from Doctor Who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For that Image that will stay with me now forever I have a Dalek here who would like to meet you. Don't be alarmed if it yells EXTERMINATE, it will only be a quick sharp pain at first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another poster boy for patent reform.
The idea that HE thinks he deserves standing to sue over this nonsense is just mind boggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed re: juries
Preach it, brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed re: juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agreed re: juries
The problem more comes with that the juries are being paid very little compared to their regular jobs most times and therefore are out to move the case from beginning to end as fast as possible.
That does not lean towards a jury doing their 'due diligence' in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed re: juries
It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact."
There we go, much better.
the world would be a happier place with poorer lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's so surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's so surprising?
If the majority believed that Samsung had violated Apple's patents prior to adjournment, then the actual vote could be considered to be little more than a formality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's so surprising?
Ah, Murrican justice, best in the world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's so surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's so surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Under American jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into two types.
Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.
Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
The United States Marshals Service is the agency component that first holds all federal prisoners. It uses the Prisoner Population Management System /Prisoner Tracking System. The only types of records that are disclosed as being in the system are those of "federal prisoners who are in custody pending criminal proceedings." The records of "alleged civil contempors" are not listed in the Federal Register as being in the system leading to a potential claim for damages under The Privacy Act, 5 USC section 552a (e)(4)(I).[10][11]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.
Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).
I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt
What's that? They can't come up with 1% of the award? Come on, it's barely over $10,000,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this...
Isn't this considered "jury tampering"?
Allowing the jury to hear testimony without adversarial hearing is illegal isn't it? Shouldn't Hogan be in jail for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not our fault if someone gets locked up for murder for 2 decades based on some suspicious looking evidence that turned out to be bad! The evidence was just too complicated for us to consider, and we just wanted to punish a potential murderer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's immensely repugnant is the fact that this foreman has a patent on what is essential a Tivo. Tivo has been around since '99 and he filed in 2002. His patent is vague and is invalidated by prior art to the point that someone should slap the patent clerk for being stupid enough to let it pass. Then, he comes upon this case which he uses as a platform to self-enrich his own patent by convincing the jury to side with Apple, whom uses equally vague and obvious patents.
Somebody needs to call for a mistrial or something equally effectual. Then, the next trial should render those patents invalid due to prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If anything you're right, the right thing to do would declare the mistrial and then nullify the patent suits altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When interviewed, one of the jurors admitted that they ignored prior art completely on the foreman's advice because it was just easier than deliberating over those details. The foreman even admits he put himself in Apple's shoes to make a determination, which is strictly forbidden by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1)too expensive
2)not so good as to be able to compete without government and court help. quite pathetic, really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Win-win?
Buy your Samsung stock now, while it's (temporarily) low(er).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what you will about the patents, their validity, and whether or not this should even have made it to trial: this verdict is a miscarriage of justice if I've ever seen one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Nullification in action
In this case, we have a jury that did exactly what they wanted to do. And surprise, surprise, surprise, Techdirt is mad because they buy cheap Android devices for their employees, and they know the costs are about to go up.
Honestly, I think this is a bad ruling, and I think Apple should have fought this out in the market place. It just pisses me off to see Techdirt be so wishy-washy. Decide what you believe, and stick with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Nullification in action
"Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment."
Swing and a miss there chief. Jury nullification is the jury acquitting guilty defendants, not handing out justice based on their own opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
They were just being flexible with that definition, and applied it backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
"Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law."
It's the second line that is important here, which of course is the line you didn't copy/paste.
There are a few things to keep in mind.
1.) Jury nullification is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. "Jury nullification is a de facto (In law, [de facto] often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established.") power of juries."
It is a concept that comes about due to the nature of our judicial system. Because we have a trial by jury, the jurors can use their own judgement to determine their vote. If they feel certain portions of the law are incompatible with justice, they can feel free to ignore those portions of the law.
That is what happened here. (Note: I don't think it's right.) To dispense "justice", the jurors ignored prior art, and instructions that would have interfered with their idea of said justice.
2.) There is nothing in your wikipedia article that limits jury nullification to criminal cases, nor criminal law. The idea is not that guilty parties go free, but that the law itself is unjust. The thing that the jury is nullifying is not the guilt of the defendant, it's the unjust law.
Again, the jurors felt that prior art was not a valid factor in the patent law. Again, it's a wrong attitude, but it's perfectly within the realm of jury nullification.
3.) Because jury nullification is a concept, rather than codified law, its application is less than clear. Guilt and or innocence is not the issue, it's the justice of the law being applied.
In theory, a jury could find a defendant guilty when the evidence overwhelmingly points to their guilt, but the law says they should be released because the arresting officer failed to read them the Miranda Rights.
I will agree that there are some circumstances not right in this verdict. I agree that ultimately, if this ruling stands it's going to be bad for everyone. Unfortunately, the jury is well within its rights to do what they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
And the judge (or appeals court) will be well within hers to set aside a verdict in the light of gross jury misconduct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Who wants to get stuck with the current generation of technology? Apple has no incentive to create new products, and no one will want to try to compete out of fear they'll just get slapped down.
I'm not arguing that the verdict was wrong. I'm just arguing that the jury had the right to do it. I'm not convinced of misconduct within the jury.
It seems clear to me that some members should have been excluded during voir dire. Several were obviously too ignorant, others were obviously biased. Attorney's making as much money as these were should have been able to spot these guys and excluded them.
In this case, I'd say the majority of the blame lands right on the Samsung defense team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
The jury can do whatever it wants. The jury isn't on trial. However, what the jury does can be grounds for a mistrial or appeal, except in the case of Jury Nullification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
When the jury then opens it's big, fat mouth, it changes everything. When there's *proof* that the jury disobeyed the court, then it's grounds for a mistrial, or JNOV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Swing and a miss there chief. Jury nullification is the jury acquitting guilty defendants, not handing out justice based on their own opinions."
+1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
2) Jury Nullification favors the defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Jury Nullification favours what the body of peers (the Jury) considers to be the correct form of justice at the time whether that is based on statute law or what they ethically believe. In other words it favours the Community at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Nullification in action
Can't you believe in free speech, and also criticize someone for what they say? Can't you believe in the right to bear arms, and also criticize someone for misusing a gun?
If so, why can't you believe in the right of juries to nullify, and also criticize them when the power is misused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Motive:
If this patent to Apple had gotten nullified, Apple could get their money back from him if they chose to sue him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof...
/techdirtbag shill rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-leaned-on-engin eer-patent-holder
"Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his."
I don't know how you stand to question my intelligence when I can provide proof regardless of what you assume isn't reasonable thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-leaned-on-engineer -patent-holder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Not in response to yours Wally, but in case others are interested.
Some sites are reporting that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which is a stock Google phone made by Samsung, is in violation of two patents. Yet it isn't being identified by Apple insofar as getting an injunction on goes. (Meaning Apple isn't trying to have it removed from store shelves and what have you.)
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3272154/apple-identifies-samsung-products-injunction-afte r-verdict
I only semi-bring it up because in that article you presented it specifically mentions the phone, yet nowhere else have I found information on it (regarding injunctions).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
"Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his. "
He owned patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953
The point is he swayed the jury and that in of itself is not at all legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Maybe you missed it...
"Any links proving his patent was licensed to Apple?"
ANY LINKS PROVING HIS PATENT WAS LICENSED TO APPLE?
As in, any proof that Velvin Hogan's patent was licensed to Apple. I could make it clear enough so a box of rock could understand it, if you'd like. : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
How would you react if someone said an ill word towards you?
And how do I know that you're not one of the AC trolls? I'm sure you could tell Rabbit80 about those, or how many comments of yours have been marked as innapropriate as the past....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Emphasis added.
Seven years working with lawyers on his own patent does NOT affiliate him with Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
If only it were true though - If the foreman had been receiving money from Apple, it would have been great ammo for Samsung!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury of peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury of peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury of peers?
Aren't those things supposed to be addressed by expert witnesses? You never have a jury of experts at any trial. In fact, being anything like an expert in anything remotely related to the case will probably get you dismissed from the jury pool in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jury of peers?
Compared this to say a murder trial where you can have much more definitive answers. "The blood on the murder weapon only has a 1:151862156 chance it came from someone else." It's not always more cut and dry, but lends itself to be more cut and dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury of peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury of peers?
Might as well have Sheldon Cooper as the jury foreman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury of peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury of peers?
And Jobs has preemptively died first. He's the first! He's always first! Apple always invents just everything first, even when somebody else has demonstrated it before Apple invented it. They should get all the patents and they should win all their cases!
**Fanboi rant mode off**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember from jury duty once that the winning attorneys were quite adamant... "if you believe in your verdict... don't talk to anyone".
Just who is Velvin Hogan, and why does he hate Apple so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn US Legal system with it's jury of peers and all that nonsense. We should just have everything tried in front of those wonderful impartial activist elected judges.
When will you ever learn that it's not about patents, the legal system has it's own challenges that just happen to sometimes touch the fields that have shunned you and turned you into a bitter blogger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer
Equal in what way(s)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think I just vomited a little in my mouth when I typped that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The jury can be made up of other corporations.
We'll have a jury made up of 12 corporations in the technology field.
IBM
Microsoft
Redhat
Motorolla
Nokia
Sony
HP
Dell
Logitech
Oracle
Facebook
Intel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in the end the losers will be the Consumers and the Winners will be the Lawyers who are all paid good money whether on the winning or losing side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find interesting is that both companies looked extremely petty in this case while the Jury Forman held the patent that was liscensed to both companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's quite a few articles on the matter, as well as a response from Google on the verdict, online. Feel free to use that brain you may be lacking to check for yourself.
Engadget, The Verge, and various Android related sites all have the information needed to essentially shoot down your stupidity, as well as the exact quote from Google.
Unless of course you're one of the ACs trying to sound like a troll. In which case, great job! Short and to the point, with the ad hom thrown in for good measure. I award you a 10/10 if that's the case. If you're just an actual troll though, stfu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
forbes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can present at least half a dozen links, with quotes from Google, and opinions that all shoot that forbes bit down.
Care to try again?
And no, that verdict DOES NOT threaten Google at all. The patents deemed infringing are patents which are ONLY available/found on Samsung products, namely those which have Touchwiz on them, and namely devices that are all already out of date.
The same has nearly happened with other manufacturers, HTC being one of the more recent, and one simple code/OS change later (since they add Sense) and they were no longer in violation.
Stock Android DOES NOT violate Apple's patents. Contrary to what you may believe and what Forbes, erroneously, thinks.
And if you think Android users will flock to Apple you and Forbes are sadly mistaken. Apple's on the market right now. Yet consumers choose to go with Android. Why is that? Their choice. As long as there are Android devices, some will choose to use them.
Of course, if you remove all choice, which would require removing the ability to purchase any Android product, that still wouldn't guarantee anyone going to Apple because there are still choices, namely Blackberry and WP7 (soon to be WP8).
You suck at this. Just fyi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because Apple devices are sooo much cheaper than any other competitor, and it will only take a few dollars more on Android to tip the balance, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/26/3270837/google-responds-apple-samsung-verdict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How so? Android was not implicated in this fight. It was a fight strictly between Samsung and Apple, based on stupid things such as design patents (seriously, design patents?).
Assuming that Samsung comes hurt out of this (my guess is, they won't), there are others ready to take its place. Asus, for example.
Android will be just fine. iOS, I suspect, not so much. Remember, Apple was king in the times of the Apple II. Then Jobs left and Apple almost died. Apple was only able to find its course after Jobs came back. With Jobs gone, I suspect that Apple will take a nosedive soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Samsung .. lost on almost every count ..... Google, which makes the Android software that runs at the core of Samsung phones, will clearly feel an impact .... Most popular smartphones today are a slab of glass and metal controlled through a touch-screen full of icons arrayed on the screen. .... the user interface — the icons and other features that users see and touch — of the Nokia Windows phones look distinctly different from the iPhone. Nokia, a longtime maker of phones, also has a thick portfolio of patents to protect itself. .... Android phones are the most common smartphones on the market today. Samsung is the world’s largest maker of smartphones and it has been quickly gaining market share. Collectively, the various Android phones from Samsung and other makers easily outsell Apple’s iPhones. .... While Google is not involved in this case, Apple was clearly going after Android all along .... “It’s not good news for Google ..... Apple’s real target is the Android ecosystem, the Android world, everything having to do with Androids. That’s really what they are targeting here.”
technbiz.blogspot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike Mansick wasn't talking about Google, was he talking about neither Samsung nor Apple. He was talking about how the Jury Foreman had a conflict of interest.
In my opinion, if his liscensed patent to Apple were nullified, he could be sued by Apple for getting their money back.
As far as the trial, people forget that both sides were suing over patents that would normally have been nullified or found equally infringing and therefore, dismissed with prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, Apple deserves to win because if this was me how would I feel. Nothing based on the facts. (We'll overlook the fact that his patent is basically for TiVo, which was on the market 3 years prior to his patent. Which is something that has already been brought up on other websites, as well as the comments here.)
This is someone who went in with a certain mindset and the facts be damned. Then convinced others with his "expertise" on the subject at hand to basically view things how he wanted them to.
This is definitely going to hurt Apple in an appeal, and very much hurt that foreman. I hope someone challenges his patent and they mop the floor with him. Teach him a lesson, and perhaps give him more than a slap on the wrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oranges = apples
Then let's say iPhones devices infringed approx ~$10 of Samsung patents and ~$10 of Motorola per device and more iPhones sold than Samsung devices.
They might be paying lawyers millions of dollar and grid-locking the public court system (that WE pay for) for what could essentially be the difference of the cost of a dinner out.
But I'm sure Tim Cook and Apple took this decision very heavily and weighed all their options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/techdirtbag shill rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Jury
In the time the jury was being picked we learnt that one of the jurors has a family member who would probably benefit if Apple won by apples share raising in price , which they did after the judgement, very obvious bias here.
Then we learn that one of the jurors have a patent in the same field as both companies.
Now please explain to me how anyone in there right mind could allow these two people to be on this jury.
If anything the Judge should have attempted to make sure the jury was full of people that would in no way be biased towards either party or have an opinion or interest in either party wining.
I don't see this as a failure of the Jury, although they should be punished for wasting the courts time, possibly by having to write a 100 page essay on what happened in the debates.
If you have someone who has experience in the subject they can explain from there perspective which could easily sway people on the jury that suddenly think they are talking to an expert.
The judge should dismiss the jury, accept that she made mistakes and allowed a biased jury to sit and allow a retrial. At the least the Judge has to accept responsibility for the mess and try to sort it out as best as she can. She knows the contents of the case and she should be able to make a judgement on her own. Maybe like the judge in England and Korea.
Korea being the best example because the Judge there forced them to be in a position where both lost and the only way for them to not have there products removed from the market would be to talk to each other, more so Apple as Samsung will lose less than Apple by having a few of there phones banned from the country. Apple has 5 phones while Samsung has possibly hundreds of different smartphones they could replace those removed from the market and Samsung could change manufacturing very quickly to change the looks of there banned phones where Apple could not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jury
I think "in no way" is pretty much an impossibility. You want as little bias as possible, but short of growing jurors in a vat, everyone is going to have an education, a job, friends, opinions, and so forth.
Both sides interview jurors, and both sides have a limited number of challenges they get use to eliminate people they feel might be prejudicial to the case at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Jury
Why couldn't they do their research? Why did they present evidence late? They just seemed a tad naive the whole way through this process.
Arguably, there's one thing that Samsung wasn't able to copy... Apple's persuasive lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Jury
Good question - check out the writeup at Groklaw regarding Judicial... um.... inconsistencies in motion rulings.
I am certain a lot of it will come up on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truly sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Velvin Hogan
Motive:
If this patent to Apple had gotten nullified, Apple could get their money back from him if they chose to sue him.
So, Why would Judge KOH even allow Velvin Hoganon on the Jury panel? Judge KOH is very unbiased towards Samsung as was the previous Judge, Judge KOH needs to resign for failing to do Justice in this major case.
Velvin Hogan, Judge KOH including many others are amongst the Jury panel who are paid or influenced by Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misconduct?
that they handed the Jury a 700 question form.
The Judge should have done HIS job of winnowing away the unimportant details and getting down to the meat of the issue. Really? Rounded corners? That should have been thrown out in a heartbeat. Pinch to zoom... Now we have an issue.
At the bare minimum, the case should have been subdivided into separate issues to be found before the court.
The jury was merely confronted and overwhelmed by the enormity of the task. Given the change in the social environment, oversimplification and abstraction is almost a survival skill in today's world of data. You either over think it and sink, or abstract and swim.
This needs a HUGE LOAD of STEAMING MISTRIAL!!!!
I'd lay it at the feet of the Judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misconduct?
FTFY - Judge Lucy Koh ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juror Comments (Legally) Meanigless?
Anyone have anything on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Foreman's Patent
I got the patent URL from: https://twitter.com/rakeshlobster/status/240301378663231488
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battle between Apple and Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greedy americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out of curiosity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]