anyone reading the apple vs Samsung live blog at the verge?

[ChazUK]

Some fascinating post entries being written.

It seems pretty clear Koh doesn't think the jury did a very thorough job on damages.

----

2:19:28 PM PST
Koh makes the point that the jury wasn't bound to give any more than what Apple's expert calculated.
2:18:50 PM PST
It could be that the jury found that more was warranted in damages on these particular products.
2:18:23 PM PST
Koh moves to the Fascinate, S 4G, and Vibrant. "The jury appears to have given 40 percent of Samsung's profits along with Apple's lost profits."

---

2:33:25 PM PST
Koh: "For barely two million phones I don't think it's realistic that Apple's lost profits would be $8 million."
2:32:39 PM PST
Koh: "The royalty rate that Mr. Musika advocated does not get you to $58 million."
2:31:38 PM PST
When Musika told the jury about his damages report during the trial it seemed rather convoluted. It's not surprising that what the jury did with that report has become a topic of conversation.

I do wonder where this will end up.

Link to the live blog here: http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-...trial-hearing/

[MisterKeeks]

Doesn't look like Apple will get the $1 billion... Wonder how much the settlement will be reduced by.

[LSUtigers03]

Apple and Samsung are back in Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom to talk about potential sales bans, additional damages, and whether the actions of the jury foreman are reason for Apple's $1.049 billion win to be thrown out altogether.

What were the actions of the jury foreman?

[TheHateMachine]

Originally Posted by LSUtigers03

What were the actions of the jury foreman?

I believe it has to do with his past affiliations with Seagate, how the original lawsuit from Seagate was brought forward by the partner of the firm that represented Samsung in this case, the failure to disclose the past relationships with Seagate and the Firm during juror selection and the supposedly incorrect outside information on Patents he brought to the other jurors during deliberation.

I am not 100% sure this is everything but it is some of the things I have read and seen.

[VulchR]

Seems to me that it is pretty dangerous to have judges second-guess juries, unless one of the jurors has violated the law. Not sure if that is what Samsung are implying in this case....

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Seems to me that it is pretty dangerous to have judges second-guess juries

It happens all the time.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Seems to me that it is pretty dangerous to have judges second-guess juries, unless one of the jurors has violated the law. Not sure if that is what Samsung are implying in this case....

It's partly to prevent jury emotions or ignorance from condemning a defendant without good reason.

Because they are presumed to have greater legal knowledge than a jury, judges can overturn or set aside obviously bad guilty decisions (but not findings of innocence). For example, it can happen if the judge thinks the jury's decision could not possibly have been reached if they had followed the rules / evidence.

In fact, just this past month, a judge threw out a jury's $150 million decision against RIM, because the evidence did not support the claim that RIM infringed on another company's patents.

(This is one reason why many people believe that patents should not be judged by lay juries. The recent patent reform act acknowledges that somewhat, by allowing the choice of either the Russian roulette of a jury trial, or relying on an intense USPTO review. It also has limits on awards, making them more close to what a license would've cost.)

In this particular Apple-Samsung case, one red flag is that the jury awarded like ten times the amount that even Apple's own experts had valued their patents at. (Punishment or "sending a signal" was not the jury's job, despite what the foreman said in interview. That's up to the judge after the trial.)

[kevinone]

Originally Posted by kdarling

It's partly to prevent jury emotions or ignorance from condemning a defendant without good reason.

Because they are presumed to have greater legal knowledge than a jury, judges can overturn or set aside guilty decisions (but not findings of innocence). For example, it can happen if the judge thinks the jury's decision could not possibly have been reached if they had followed the rules / evidence.

In fact, just this past month, a judge threw out a jury's $150 million decision against RIM, because the evidence did not support the claim that RIM infringed on another company's patents.

(This is one reason why many people believe that patents should not be judged by lay juries. The recent patent reform act acknowledges that somewhat, by allowing the choice of either the Russian roulette of a jury trial, or relying on an intense USPTO review. It also has limits on awards, making them more close to what a license would've cost.)

In this particular Apple-Samsung case, one red flag is that the jury awarded like ten times the amount that even Apple's own experts had valued their patents at. (Punishment was not their job; that's what the judge decides later.)

Apple's patents are so valuable or just their game with huge rewards ^^.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by kdarling

It's partly to prevent jury emotions or ignorance from condemning a defendant without good reason.

Because they are presumed to have greater legal knowledge than a jury, judges can overturn or set aside obviously bad guilty decisions (but not findings of innocence). For example, it can happen if the judge thinks the jury's decision could not possibly have been reached if they had followed the rules / evidence.

In fact, just this past month, a judge threw out a jury's $150 million decision against RIM, because the evidence did not support the claim that RIM infringed on another company's patents.

(This is one reason why many people believe that patents should not be judged by lay juries. The recent patent reform act acknowledges that somewhat, by allowing the choice of either the Russian roulette of a jury trial, or relying on an intense USPTO review. It also has limits on awards, making them more close to what a license would've cost.)

In this particular Apple-Samsung case, one red flag is that the jury awarded like ten times the amount that even Apple's own experts had valued their patents at. (Punishment or "sending a signal" was not the jury's job, despite what the foreman said in interview. That's up to the judge after the trial.)

Judges are just as emotional as jurors. The whole point of the jury system is to make it less prone to the whims of one individual. I could see justification for a judge to step in when a jury has been tainted, but simply disagreeing with the jury shouldn't be grounds for an appeal. No wonder legal cases take forever to resolve.

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Judges are just as emotional as jurors. The whole point of the jury system is to make it less prone to the whims of one individual. I could see justification for a judge to step in when a jury has been tainted, but simply disagreeing with the jury shouldn't be grounds for an appeal. No wonder legal cases take forever to resolve.

Disagreeing with a jury isn't the only grounds. Disagreeing with a verdict is why people bring appeals, but you have to demonstrate cause if your appeal is to survive (or even be heard).

[ixodes]

Originally Posted by SlCKB0Y

It happens all the time.

Very true.

Furthermore, our legal system is broken, corrupt, and sadly... there's no fix in sight.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Judges are just as emotional as jurors. The whole point of the jury system is to make it less prone to the whims of one individual.

Yes, and the point of having a trained judge preside is to make sure that both the trial and the jury's verdict are legally accomplished.

I could see justification for a judge to step in when a jury has been tainted, but simply disagreeing with the jury shouldn't be grounds for an appeal. No wonder legal cases take forever to resolve.

It's not about "disagreeing with the jury" decision.

It's about the judge determining that the jury clearly didn't follow the rules that they were given for finding infringement or damages etc. In other words, the jury's verdict wasn't legally sound.

[sviato]

Interesting read, looking forward to seeing the result

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by kdarling

...It's not about "disagreeing with the jury" decision... It's about the judge determining that the jury clearly didn't follow the rules that they were given for finding infringement or damages etc. In other words, the jury's verdict wasn't legally sound.

The judge should have never let the jury come to the point of a verdict if they thought anything was unsound. Once the verdict is delivered it should be respected - if there was something wrong before the point of jury deliberation, the judge should have stopped the trial. Quite apart from anything, one can never confirm post-hoc whether jurors have followed instructions or not (how do we know that the jurors comments after the trial weren't due to bribes by Samsung (or Apple for that matter). Having a judge review the verdict of a jury because they think that the jury 'didn't follow instructions' is an amazingly arrogant move. Jury by one's peers was meant to prevent a single person from having too much power, and having judges review jurors' verdicts undermines checks and balances (and the 6th amendment) IMO.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by VulchR

The judge should have never let the jury come to the point of a verdict if they thought anything was unsound. Once the verdict is delivered it should be respected - if there was something wrong before the point of jury deliberation, the judge should have stopped the trial.

Right, if there are any mistakes before the jury gets the case, a judge can declare a mistrial.

Quite apart from anything, one can never confirm post-hoc whether jurors have followed instructions or not (how do we know that the jurors comments after the trial weren't due to bribes by Samsung (or Apple for that matter).

Sometimes it's really easy to tell if the jurors followed instructions or not.

In this case the jurors were told to award Apple with the value for patents they thought Samsung infringed. For example, to guide them, Apple said they thought their bounceback patent was worth about $2 per unit. So the jury should've awarded that amount or less (much less, to tell the truth).

Instead, it sure looks like they decided to "punish Samsung" by going with an amount that was much more than what Apple themselves had said the patents were worth... even though punishing was NOT their job. At all. Stuff like that, where the jury clearly might not have followed the rules, are why Koh is scrutinizing the jury's results.

Make more sense now? In this case, it's not so much about the jury decision... Samsung still infringed... but what they did with that decision.

Having a judge review the verdict of a jury because they think that the jury 'didn't follow instructions' is an amazingly arrogant move. Jury by one's peers was meant to prevent a single person from having too much power, and having judges review jurors' verdicts undermines checks and balances (and the 6th amendment) IMO.

I hear ya, but at the same time, it's protection for the defendant. Remember, a judge cannot change a not-guilty verdict to guilty. The judge can only take an obviously poorly obtained guilty verdict and reduce or remove it.

[Rodster]

Originally Posted by kdarling

For example, Apple said they thought their bounceback patent was worth about $2 per unit. So the jury should've awarded that amount or less.

$2 x how many units?

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Rodster

$2 x how many units?

I'll have to look up which ones were determined to infringe. I think a legal website figured out that only $150 million could be accounted for if the jury actually followed instructions for the utility patents.

Supposedly the jury gave Apple 50% royalties on some Samsung devices, which is of course ridiculous. See this article:

One particular device, the Samsung Galaxy Prevail, was brought up for special attention. The jury awarded Apple twice the amount of profits Apple claims it had from the introduction of this device and Apple said that the evidence supported a bigger award.

The Judge apparently is coming around to the idea that the jury did not do a good job calculating damages. Koh even hinted at what her further course of action will be when she asked Samsung's attorneys, "What if I just calculated the reasonable royalty for the Prevail?"

Samsung also said that lost profit calculations shouldn't apply since Apple could not meet demand for the Apple iPhone.

-article