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

[Mark Booth]

It is remarkable.

What's remarkable is that so many in these threads are basing their opinions and comments on sound bites, brief news stories, and comments made by other uninformed persons.

- There were NINE jurors, not twelve.
- At the first vote, SEVEN of them voted to award damages to Apple.

These people sat through nearly THREE weeks of arguments, evidence and testimony. Ya think maybe they digested a bit of it over a period of THREE WEEKS?

Compare that to the, what, 10 minutes most of the people making comments in these threads spent "researching" the legal arguments and actual patent law?

At the end of three weeks the jurors were among THE most informed people on the planet with regard to the specifics of this case.

And the ENTIRE POINT of the jury system is that you put a group of people in a room to argue with each other until they come to a consensus.

Since it's so popular to shirk jury duty in this country, I bet a VERY small percentage of people here have ever served on a jury. I've served on three juries and I thoroughly enjoyed the process, even though at times it can be frustrating.

Compared to some of the people in this thread, the jurors in San Jose are freakin' rocket scientists.

Mark

 

[sha4000]

What's remarkable is that so many in these threads are basing their opinions and comments on sound bites, brief news stories, and comments made by other uninformed persons.

- There were NINE jurors, not twelve.
- At the first vote, SEVEN of them voted to award damages to Apple.

These people sat through nearly THREE weeks of arguments, evidence and testimony. Ya think maybe they digested a bit of it over a period of THREE WEEKS?

Compare that to the, what, 10 minutes most of the people making comments in these threads spent "researching" the legal arguments and actual patent law?

At the end of three weeks the jurors were among THE most informed people on the planet with regard to the specifics of this case.

And the ENTIRE POINT of the jury system is that you put a group of people in a room to argue with each other until they come to a consensus.

Since it's so popular to shirk jury duty in this country, I bet a VERY small percentage of people here have ever served on a jury. I've served on three juries and I thoroughly enjoyed the process, even though at times it can be frustrating.

Compared to some of the people in this thread, the jurors in San Jose are freakin' rocket scientists.

Mark

Now you know how some posters feel on both sides of the argument when they try to explain things to other posters on both sides of the argument.

 

[samcraig]

Mark - we don't always agree but I have to say that while I agree with some/most of your thoughts below - you lose some points on respect by making hasty assumptions. Your "condemning" posters on here for their quick judgements and then you turn around and do the same. You have no idea who or how many of us have served on a jury any more than you know how much or little we've read on the case and poured over the released evidence. You also don't know the age, occupation, etc of people here to make any sort of snap judgement. So what I'm saying is - you had me with your post except for the top and bottom statements.

My .02

What's remarkable is that so many in these threads are basing their opinions and comments on sound bites, brief news stories, and comments made by other uninformed persons.

- There were NINE jurors, not twelve.
- At the first vote, SEVEN of them voted to award damages to Apple.

These people sat through nearly THREE weeks of arguments, evidence and testimony. Ya think maybe they digested a bit of it over a period of THREE WEEKS?

Compare that to the, what, 10 minutes most of the people making comments in these threads spent "researching" the legal arguments and actual patent law?

At the end of three weeks the jurors were among THE most informed people on the planet with regard to the specifics of this case.

And the ENTIRE POINT of the jury system is that you put a group of people in a room to argue with each other until they come to a consensus.

Since it's so popular to shirk jury duty in this country, I bet a VERY small percentage of people here have ever served on a jury. I've served on three juries and I thoroughly enjoyed the process, even though at times it can be frustrating.

Compared to some of the people in this thread, the jurors in San Jose are freakin' rocket scientists.

Mark

 

[bsolar]

- At the first vote, SEVEN of them voted to award damages to Apple.

And so what? If the sentence gets overturned on appeal (which is perfecty possible), then all 9 of them ultimately voted wrong.

These people sat through nearly THREE weeks of arguments, evidence and testimony. Ya think maybe they digested a bit of it over a period of THREE WEEKS?

When it can take months for experts to evaluate even a single patent's validity? A bit, maybe, but a bit is not enough.

And the ENTIRE POINT of the jury system is that you put a group of people in a room to argue with each other until they come to a consensus.

The jury system is well known to have huge drawbacks, especially in these kind of cases. In my opinion it's simply pointless to try and get a jury educated enough to decide these matters, also because many will simply decide based on emotions instead of rational thinking, or follow what the few influential jurors push.

 

[bsolar]

Groklaw is commenting on the foreman's video: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

One of the most juicy bits:

In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor. It doesn't have to run at all. It can be words on a piece of paper. (If you don't believe little old me, here's a lawyer noticing the video too now. [http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis])

Basically they decided prior art for that patent was invalid for a completely bogus reason. The idea that prior art is not relevant unless it does run on the same processor is laughable for anyone even only slighlty educated about patents. And these jurors were supposed to know what they were deciding about.

And yes, they were instructed clearly about what can be considered prior art. I don't understand how people still wonder why the jury is under fire from commenters all around...

The article mentioned above also has strong opinions about jury trials in these cases: http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

It could be that the Foreman was simply being inarticulate in his explanation. However, it seems far more likely that the jury was confused as to a proper obviousness analysis; this is not at all surprising. The Foreman and his colleagues were tasked with an impossibly complex mission: to navigate over a very short period of time, unfamiliar and arcane legal concepts mashed together with complex questions of technology. For this reason, jury verdicts and their corresponding damage awards can be quite the “crap shoot.” Not surprisingly, most patent litigation will settle prior to a jury trial.

 

[alent1234]

Groklaw is commenting on the foreman's video: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

One of the most juicy bits:



Basically they decided prior art for that patent was invalid for a completely bogus reason. The idea that prior art is not relevant unless it does run on the same processor is laughable for anyone even only slighlty educated about patents. And these jurors were supposed to know what they were deciding about.

And yes, they were instructed clearly about what can be considered prior art. I don't understand how people still wonder why the jury is under fire from commenters all around...

The article mentioned above also has strong opinions about jury trials in these cases: http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

every patent has prior art and lists all the patents its based on. a patent is on an implementation of an idea and not the whole idea

 

[linkgx1]

What the heck is this and 'not the same processor' so it invalidates prior art?

RETRIAL. Or we need to talk to some Cheif Justices...

----------

It's not moot. You cannot possibly believe that 100 percent of the people who bought Samsung phones on a different carrier WOULD have bought an iPhone if those phones didn't exist. And if the award is based on # of units sold, then picking the 100% of units sold is an extreme number. You can argue whether or not it's still deserved. But it's not moot.

Tha'ts true. Many people AVOIDED the iPhone JUST BECAUSE of AT&T. I did for a while, and the Samsung Vibrant was the next best thing.

But apparently Apple doesn't believe in opportunity costs. By going to ATT, they already ignored over 80 million customers @ VZW at the time.

 

[bsolar]

every patent has prior art and lists all the patents its based on. a patent is on an implementation of an idea and not the whole idea

You miss the point. They decided the prior art of one of the patent was not relevant because it did not run on the same processor of Apple's patent. This is obviously not a good reason to ignore prior art and the jury was clearly instructed about that.

It could still be that the prior art proposed does not invalidate Apple's patent in question, but the jury decided this using a completely incorrect rationale.

 

[JAT]

Edison's lightbulb is not obvious even today. Its not obvious that you can eliminate oxidation by incasing the filament in vacuum bulb (even if you know oxidation occurs, it not obvious that you can eliminate it in this novel way.)

Seriously? I'm not going to debate the rest of your points about this, those are also questionable. But anyone attempting anything with metal that oxidizes knows to protect it from air. If not, that just means they won't be smart enough to invent anything. Like a monkey. I'm trying to figure out if you are being elitist or what.

The Egyptians understood pretty well about decay and oxidation from exposure to air 3000 years before our current calendar started.

I can see it...

I wonder why you get defensive and claim people are creating strawmen around your posts. Or is this just throwing them a bone?

Irony is with Apple clearing out the low end performance phones, theres a better possibility for MS and Nokia to launch.

That's not irony, that would (theoretically) be a competitive system functioning properly. Once we get the non-competitive models out of the way.

Actually, he was found *liable* in civil court.

(Which, from a conceptual stand-point baffles me.

Quite simple, the first jury was dead wrong. But that can't be tried again.

Apple's immense wealth demonstrates that they've been well rewarded for being first to market. They need only continue to innovate.

I thought it was the opinion of the we-are-more-objective-than-thou crowd that Apple was far from first to market. Isn't that the point of all the prior art shown by such ones? Like yourself, I believe?

They've been first to succeed in a meaningful way in the tablet market. I would say because of solid integration, which others attempted and failed.

 

[linkgx1]

What's remarkable is that so many in these threads are basing their opinions and comments on sound bites, brief news stories, and comments made by other uninformed persons.

- There were NINE jurors, not twelve.
- At the first vote, SEVEN of them voted to award damages to Apple.

These people sat through nearly THREE weeks of arguments, evidence and testimony. Ya think maybe they digested a bit of it over a period of THREE WEEKS?

Compare that to the, what, 10 minutes most of the people making comments in these threads spent "researching" the legal arguments and actual patent law?

At the end of three weeks the jurors were among THE most informed people on the planet with regard to the specifics of this case.

And the ENTIRE POINT of the jury system is that you put a group of people in a room to argue with each other until they come to a consensus.

Since it's so popular to shirk jury duty in this country, I bet a VERY small percentage of people here have ever served on a jury. I've served on three juries and I thoroughly enjoyed the process, even though at times it can be frustrating.

Compared to some of the people in this thread, the jurors in San Jose are freakin' rocket scientists.

Mark

I hope you know 3 weeks of arguing and 3 days of deliberations are two differnet things ENTIRELY.

Remeber the OJ trial? One tiny glove changed everything for "Juice".

It is the DUTY of the jury to analyze EVERYTHING to the best of their ability (not because some foreman said something).

Being the 'most informed' means nothing if you ignore the rules you were given

So....

 

[AppleMark]

Actually, it was done a few times over the years, but nobody paid attention because 1) the technology or price wasn't quite ripe, 2) it wasn't let out of R&D, and/or 3) it wasn't done by someone with high publicity.

One of the best examples I can think of offhand, was the Norwegian Freepad back in 2000. Like the later iPad, its UI was created specifically to be touch friendly, and designed as they put it, so that it would be "so easy to use, that your grandmother can use it," Sound familiar? Its specs read just like an iPad would've back then... including having a dedicated app store.

View attachment 355027

Similar touch friendliness was tried with phones. One example is the 2003 MyOrigo touch phone with swipe between menu pages and integrated 3D orientation sensor:

View attachment 355028

Ditto for other multi-touch, pinch zoom, etc devices that came before the iPhone: most people never knew about them, but it doesn't meant they didn't exist. Lots of technology isn't known by the mass consumer until they can buy it.

Yes, as I have already said, it was not viable concept until the iPad/iPhone. I am not interested in failed attempts to reach the mass market. You are only making my point with your response, thanks. It makes no difference whether we are talking about design, software, etc. The package that worked was Apples iPad/iPhone. There is no escaping that fact, no matter how pedantic people wish to be.

Samsungs products looked and felt like a iPad/iPhone and the courts have ruled this way.

 

[alent1234]

You miss the point. They decided the prior art of one of the patent was not relevant because it did not run on the same processor of Apple's patent. This is obviously not a good reason to ignore prior art and the jury was clearly instructed about that.

It could still be that the prior art proposed does not invalidate Apple's patent in question, but the jury decided this using a completely incorrect rationale.

yes it is, different CPU is different algorithm. same idea different implementation.

we've had pinch and zoom for a long time but doing it on capacitive touch screen is different than other screen technologies. same with slide to unlock.

 

[Peace]

I hope you know 3 weeks of arguing and 3 days of deliberations are two differnet things ENTIRELY.

Remeber the OJ trial? One tiny glove changed everything for "Juice".

It is the DUTY of the jury to analyze EVERYTHING to the best of their ability (not because some foreman said something).

Being the 'most informed' means nothing if you ignore the rules you were given

So....

I suggest you tell the judge because anything you say here has no effect on this trial.

 

[AppleMark]

You're trying to say this isn't so based on "tablets didn't sell before the iPad" without even knowing why they didn't. A particular detail as covered by the patents Apple use is not it.

No, I am saying that they did not sell because nobody had produced a viable complete product to bring to the mass market.

This is not a chicken and egg issue. iPad and iPhone came first whether you like it or not.

It is a simple fact that you cannot escape, that samsung or anybody else were unable to sit down and crack it.

Reverse engineer it perhaps, yes...

 

[samcraig]

I wonder why you get defensive and claim people are creating strawmen around your posts. Or is this just throwing them a bone?

I think I'm allowed to illustrate I have a sense of humor about everything given how heated some people get. This has nothing to do with throwing anyone a bone. No idea what it even has to do with being defensive or strawmen discussion.

 

[Renzatic]

I suggest you tell the judge because anything you say here has no effect on this trial.

Why has this become a thing around here recently? You can't have a discussion about the pros and cons of a topic because someone will eventually pop up saying "you're wasting your time, what you say won't change anything olol ur dum".

Why discuss anything at all? Wondering about the Mac Pro? Waste of time. You wanting one doesn't change whether Apple will release a new one or not. Why discuss politics? It's not like your opinion on a candidate has any bearing on whether they'll be voted in or not. Why discuss the climate? It's not like anything you say is going to suddenly change the weather.

Why bother doing anything at all? Hell, I'm just gonna stay indoors and eat pizza til I dahhhhh.

 

[linkgx1]

I suggest you tell the judge because anything you say here has no effect on this trial.

Not worth my time. These bickering companies are not paying ME any money. I'm here to discuss. The Samsung CEO has a $15 million Ferrari, Tim Cook gets payed $60 million plus a year.

Unless I get a chunk, I'm staying out of this.

----------

Why has this become a thing around here recently? You can't have a discussion about the pros and cons of a topic because someone will eventually pop up saying "you're wasting your time, what you say won't change anything olol ur dum".

Why discuss anything at all? Wondering about the Mac Pro? Waste of time. You wanting one doesn't change whether Apple will release a new one or not. Why discuss politics? It's not like your opinion on a candidate has any bearing on whether they'll be voted in or not. Why discuss the climate? It's not like anything you say is going to suddenly change the weather.

Why bother doing anything at all? Hell, I'm just gonna stay indoors and eat pizza til I dahhhhh.

I like your thinking.

I think that only applies to people that are pointing out the flaws of the trial. Because if it the decision were reversed, America has a 'broken justice system'.

I discuss here because I like bringing up certain points. I can honestly care less what any company does, but as a student wanting to go to law school...I find this fascinating.

----------

No, I am saying that they did not sell because nobody had produced a viable complete product to bring to the mass market.

This is not a chicken and egg issue. iPad and iPhone came first whether you like it or not.

It is a simple fact that you cannot escape, that samsung or anybody else were unable to sit down and crack it.

Reverse engineer it perhaps, yes...

And the Motorola RAZR came first...so...what's your point?

 

[rjohnstone]

No, I am saying that they did not sell because nobody had produced a viable complete product to bring to the mass market.

This is not a chicken and egg issue. iPad and iPhone came first whether you like it or not.

It is a simple fact that you cannot escape, that samsung or anybody else were unable to sit down and crack it.

Reverse engineer it perhaps, yes...

Viability is irrelevant when it comes to patents.
The capabilities in the iPhone/iPad existed before they were manufactured.

What Apple had was the marketing skills to push their product successfully.
Even Apple wasn't sure it would sell. They took the risk while others were still researching.
The risk Apple took still doesn't give them exclusive rights to tech they didn't invent.

 

[LordVic]

I have no problem with one jury member, who makes up his mind, telling other jury members how they should vote.

Thats the American way and is being judged by members of your peers isnt it?




/s

 

[Renzatic]

No, I am saying that they did not sell because nobody had produced a viable complete product to bring to the mass market.

Yeah they did. Smartphones have been around and selling for nearly a decade now. Convincing yourself that the iPhone is something entirely different doesn't change the fact that it's still an extension of what's come before. A well done extension, but an extension nonetheless.

This is not a chicken and egg issue. iPad and iPhone came first whether you like it or not.

See above. The iPhone and iPad are the chicken to some other products egg.

It is a simple fact that you cannot escape, that samsung or anybody else were unable to sit down and crack it.

Reverse engineer it perhaps, yes...

Did Apple invent the smartphone? The capacitive touchscreen? Gestures? They popularized them, sure. But that doesn't give them exclusive rights to concepts already written about, studied and implemented elsewhere.

What Apple did with the iPhone was take a concept most other companies assumed wouldn't sell, put it into a nice package, and watched it sell like balls wild mad crazy. These other companies? If they're copying anything, it's Apple's success, not their technological concepts.

 

[kdarling]

Yes, as I have already said, it was not viable concept until the iPad/iPhone. I am not interested in failed attempts to reach the mass market.

Then we're saying the same thing: the iPad wasn't the first touch solution. It simply came out at a time when the mass consumer market was more viable.

Jobs agreed: he said he didn't think the time was right for a tablet yet, so he did a smartphone first.

.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, as I have already said, it was not viable concept until the iPad/iPhone. I am not interested in failed attempts to reach the mass market. You are only making my point with your response, thanks. It makes no difference whether we are talking about design, software, etc. The package that worked was Apples iPad/iPhone. There is no escaping that fact, no matter how pedantic people wish to be.

What makes it viable is quite important. You can't patent things that are obvious or non-novel, even if your particular product that uses it is the first one that's viable.

Same for designs or software patents really. I don't even know where you're trying to go. "Being marketable and viable" is not a requirement for patents. Non-obviousness and being novel are.

----------

This is not a chicken and egg issue. iPad and iPhone came first whether you like it or not.

Wait, you're contradicting yourself. Were the iPad and iPhone first or were they the first ones that were viable ? Because one is not equivalent to the other. You've stated yourself that before the iPad/iPhone, many tried but failed the market test. That means the iPad and iPhone weren't first at all.

I'm now confused by your apparently conflicting position as much as by your lack of understanding of how patents work.

 

[avonord]

This analogy is stupid.

It's more like chef no. 1 us using brown sugar in his pancake recipe. Then chef no. 2 uses brown sugar. However chef no. 1 was granted a questionable certificate saying that only he can use brown sugar in his pancake recipe, even though it has been used before. Fans of chef no. 1 start attacking chef no. 2 saying that he is stealing from chef no. 1 because he could have used white sugar, even though that wouldn't achieve the best taste.

If it's only sugar, I think there would be way less argument. Instead, many of the ingredients were never popular and used only in failed dishes. And Apple, somehow, managed to cook it in its dish in such a way that everybody loves it.

And Samsung used a lot more these ingredients from Apple's dish than anyone else; not just the one or two ingredients. The result is the imitation of the whole package, whole experience. Whole dish, if you will. And that makes them more guilty than everybody else.

I think there is no question as to whether Samsung was trying to imitate Apple's product. Imitating a popular product has a great advantage. Apple already spent so much on marketing of their dish. A similar looking product (from a distance) would certainly garner attentions. Uninformed customers think that they look kinda the same, so they must taste the same. (Can they tell between the Apple dish and Samsung dish? Of course they can! The logo is right there. But the Samsung dish is cheaper!) Existing customers can transition easier to the new product as well.

 

[kdarling]

The article mentioned above also has strong opinions about jury trials in these cases: http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis

That link also mentions the newly enacted America Invents Act (AIA), which pertains to this situation, and to what many have commented about juries vs experts:

"After September 16th, defendants will have a choice to continue on to roll the dice at the district court with a jury trial of laypeople, or avail themselves of the new USPTO patentability trials of the AIA. The new trial proceedings of the AIA will be completed within 12-18 months of initiation and will be conducted before the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

"Unlike jurors, the decision makers of the PTAB are not laypeople. Rather, PTAB judges are experienced in the application of U.S. patent law and must additionally have an engineering and/or science background.

"In addition to the established expertise in technology and patent law, unlike the courts, PTAB judges do not accord patents a presumption of validity, nor do they require clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent. Indeed, patent claims are accorded a broadest reasonable interpretation at the USPTO, which makes them that much easier to invalidate."

- Apple Jury Confuses Obviousness Analysis in Arriving at Record Damage Verdict?

 

[aristotle]

Did Apple invent the smartphone? The capacitive touchscreen? Gestures? They popularized them, sure. But that doesn't give them exclusive rights to concepts already written about, studied and implemented elsewhere.

What Apple did with the iPhone was take a concept most other companies assumed wouldn't sell, put it into a nice package, and watched it sell like balls wild mad crazy. These other companies? If they're copying anything, it's Apple's success, not their technological concepts.

@Renzatic, there is no reasoning with you. You are confusing "concepts" aka "ideas" with specific implementations of those concepts. The former cannot be patented whereas the latter can. You cannot get a patent for an idea.

You can obtain patents on specific manufacturing processes for a smartphone and for specific functions implemented within the silicon. You can also get a patent on a specific manufacturing process for capacitive touch screens. You can also get a patent on specific gestures which provide a specific outcome on the device. Those are specific implementations of a more general idea whereas the idea itself is not patentable.

Since you cannot seem to grasp the difference between the two, I don't see how anyone can possibly have a rational discussion with you on this topic.

The problem with Samsung was that not only did the copy the idea but the specific implementation detailed by Apple in their patent application. Had they produced a different implementation of the same idea, they would not be in trouble.