Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    With the landmark Apple vs. Samsung patent and design lawsuit resulting a $1 billion verdict for Apple late last week, considerable discussion about the jury's decision-making process has been making the rounds. Several members of the jury, including foreman Velvin Hogan, gave interviews after the trial, but a new video interview of Hogan by Bloomberg Television's Emily Chang provides some additional insight into the jury's thinking. The nearly 17-minute segment covers a number of topics including the jury dynamics, calculation of damages, and how Hogan's own experience with patents and financial statements helped guide the discussion and evaluation.


    Hogan notes that he initially thought the case might swing Samsung's way as the jury initially had some difficulty assessing how the validity of the patents should be decided and applied to the case.
    Hogan also reiterates the jury's view that comments by Google demanding that Samsung tweak its product designs to look less similar to the iPhone and iPad were particularly damning, indicating that Samsung's infringement was willful as it took in Google's advice and opted not to follow it.

    Overall, the jury found that the evidence in the case "spoke overwhelmingly" to Samsung's infringement, with the jury having put "each side to the test" equally in weighing both validity and infringement claims, working through each of the involved devices and claimed infringements to reach the $1 billion verdict. Hogan also walks through how that dollar amount was reached, using their own calculations of how much Apple lost in profits from sales of the infringing Samsung devices and then adding in royalty amounts to achieve a final number.

    Article Link: Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict
  2. macrumors regular

    Feb 19, 2012
  3. macrumors 68030


    Dec 28, 2007
    PHX, AZ.
    He needs to stop talking.
    Every time he opens his mouth, he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.
    It's bad enough the jury flat out ignored the judges orders on damages, he's now admitting to doing all but taking the role of Apple's counsel in the jury room.
  4. macrumors 68000

    Jun 19, 2010
    Apple found 12 uninformed people to determine whether or not we get competition in the mobile device market.

  5. macrumors regular


    Jul 20, 2010
    awesome. stellar. fantastic. :) :apple: :apple: :apple:


    I believe Samsung agreed to the jury as well. :eek:
  6. macrumors regular

    Jul 3, 2012
    Good. They need to win the appeal. Consumers do too. The litigation thugs of Apple need to stop suing over petty stuff like 'pinch-to-zoom.' That's like LG suing Panasonic for putting an 'input' button on their television remote.
  7. macrumors 6502

    Sep 22, 2009
    Samsung's lawyers are licking their chops. How the hell could their lawyers let a guy like this slip into the jury.
  8. macrumors regular


    Jun 24, 2007
  9. macrumors Core


    Jul 24, 2006
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    Wow. Interesting that the jury went from this:

    To this:

  10. macrumors 68030


    Dec 28, 2007
    PHX, AZ.
    Not really... it's a case of compromise.
    Each side could only reject 4 jurors from the final pool.
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Oct 2, 2008
    It's supposed to be this way. Less bias. More focus on the evidence presented.
  12. macrumors regular

    Feb 19, 2012
    Said all the right things when being questioned I would think.
  13. macrumors 68040


    May 27, 2006
    No, if the decision was flawed then we need to know about it. If that means Samsung deserves to win the appeal, then justice will be done.
  14. macrumors regular

    Dec 13, 2003
    The patent he is talking about is Samsung's.

    He went home and thought about Samsungs patent, and decided that it was defensible, and for that reason deemed it valid.

    People here seem to think that the 460 patent is one of Apple's. It isn't.
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Nov 15, 2009
    So one man led a 12 man jury to agree with him because he thought he was right!

    Samsung should be able to appeal this pretty easy because the more i read the more i think this whole trial was a joke.
  16. macrumors 6502

    Feb 26, 2010
    TOO.... MUCH..... LOGIC....

    Ahh my Android head!
  17. macrumors regular

    May 19, 2010
    Lol. You can say the result stifles competition over and over and over again but that doesn't make it true. Last time I checked there are plenty of other manufacturers out there making their own phones that will provide great competition for years to come. Competition does not equal clones. You sir don't have the right to call anybody else "uninformed" with the b.s your trying to pass off as fact.
  18. macrumors 6502

    Jun 29, 2010
    Ah yes, this argument again. Because pinch-to-zoom is the only patent Samsung violated...:rolleyes:
  19. macrumors 65816


    Sep 30, 2009
    Turning jurors into celebrities is bad for justice.
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Jul 15, 2010
    lol little did they know, Google screwed them over. :rolleyes:
  21. macrumors G5


    Nov 14, 2011
    Wasn't Samsung involved in jury selection? Would be hard to appeal on jury incompetence when they helped select the jury. But I'm sure Apple wishes he'd just ****.
  22. macrumors 604


    Feb 23, 2010
    I have been on a Jury myself and yes I fully agree that this is how it is in real life.
    The jury I was on (a few drugs cases) the people (public) were pretty much confused and could see both sides. It really only takes one or two strong willed and persuasive people on the jury to sway the majority. It's quite scary actually esp if you are sending someone to prison.
  23. macrumors G4

    Oct 23, 2010
    I doubt it. Jurors speak out all the time. He isn't saying that they considered any other research or that he did anything improper. Both sides and the judge knew his background and that he had patents and was involved in lawsuits in the past. He simply explained to the rest of the jury the concepts that were laid out in the instructions.

    Jurors are supposed to consider the evidence presented to them. That doesn't mean checking their brains at the door.
  24. macrumors 68030


    May 21, 2010
    It's called being the foreman, genius.


    The jury is selected by both parties, not just the plaintiff.
  25. macrumors 601


    Mar 18, 2008
    California, United States
    Well said, sir. Especially the bit in bold.

Share This Page