To my knowledge, the juror didn't address your specific consideration. However, it isn't unreasonable to assume that at least some people would have switched carriers if their existing carriers didn't have the Samsung phones available.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To my knowledge, the juror didn't address your specific consideration. However, it isn't unreasonable to assume that at least some people would have switched carriers if their existing carriers didn't have the Samsung phones available.
You insinuated that copying happens all the time in the culinary industry and that the 1st chef just ignore it and "power on and be the culinary architect for the rest"
Maybe I foolishly assumed (because we are on an Apple website and not chef.com) that you were drawing comparisons to Apple and the rest of the mobile industry as per the topic of forum post. Then again, maybe your just trying to distance yourself from your ridiculous post.
I watched this last night on another blog. While I do personally believe that Samsung violated Apple's patents, this guy makes me cringe. Someone already said it, turning jurors into celebrities is bad for justice.
Want to know what came to my mind? John Grisham's "The Runaway Jury," an awesome novel about one man strong-arming the jury into going with his pre-trial viewpoint.
The judge should have issued a gag order for these jurors. The more he/they talk, the more twisted it's going to sound, and only stirs the crap further.
Want to know what came to my mind? John Grisham's "The Runaway Jury," an awesome novel about one man strong-arming the jury into going with his pre-trial viewpoint.
The judge should have issued a gag order for these jurors. The more he/they talk, the more twisted it's going to sound, and only stirs the crap further.
I would go with the first part of your assertion. I was responding to the specific chef scenario. Perhaps I should have added that it's a bad analogy too. Because it is. You can't or shouldn't compare the two. Way different animals.
Post wasn't ridiculous. The analogy was.
The jury foreman( this guy who also holds a patent ) had an old Samsung cellphone and one other juror had a flip phone.
All the jurors were allowed on by both parties involved.
In a case like this it is expected that the jury not be overly knowledgeable in patent law so it doesn't matter what any juror would say after the trial ended and they were excused . It would take a lot for the judge to overturn the verdict .
And it doesn't take a patent expert to find willfull actions on the part of the Samsung executives.
Or perhaps the ruling will spur even more choice and competition in the mobile device market, since now Samsung can either design unique products or license Apple's patents and continue making slightly different ones.
And it doesn't necessarily mean prices will rise. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, not with current share distribution. Also, Samsung has more than enough scale to spread the costs of litigation, damages, new design work, and licensing fees over their organization. This ruling doesn't have to be anticompetitive at all.
I'd be much more worried about the supposed changes in Apple's internal mindset since Steve died.
So many legal experts here! Obviously very few, if any, have actually served on a jury. I have. Once you do that your view of the jury system in USA is very different than before. Everyone in a jury is making their case for what they think. Unanimity is not easy with 12 people, no matter how "like minded."
Also, the statements he makes probably have no impact on any appeal of any kind in this country. Law != common sense != morality != fairness.
Also, the statements he makes probably have no impact on any appeal of any kind in this country. Law != common sense != morality != fairness.
It takes someone with more than half a brain to determine whether or not the patents are valid or worth validating.
So far are read a lot of ignorance about the legal system, predominantly from Samsung sympathizers.
The analogy could have been better, but the moral of the story still holds weight. In the absence of a method to protect the implementation of ideas and innovation, the incentive to innovate is reduced. What's Apples incentive to innovate when all the companies just copy a few months later. Furthermore what's the consumers incentive to buy Apple and not just wait a few months from Samsung or whomever to add Apples latest ideas to their new phone models.
This is the best and simplest explanation I have ever seen of the Apple vs. Samsung case.
PS: The story above usually ends like this:
And one day, the 1st chef stops because he can't afford to keep inventing without getting paid. He closes shop, and the residents say "hey, who need him anyway. 2nd chef has the same thing for less.". But then 2nd chef starts deteriorating, no-one comes up with new ideas, and people can't understand "what happened to 2nd chef. He used to be so good". In the end, it is the cheap consumers that loose.
PPS: The reason 1st chef is expensive, is because he uses 10 hours a week inventing, and 40 hours selling. Meanwhile, 2nd chef can use all his 50 hours selling. Fair? I think not.
At about 3:35 when asked about the jury not reading the instructions, Hogan explained that the jury understood the 109 page jury instructions, the judge read them point by point and they had them open during the deliberations.
At about 10:20 when asked about willfulness and the judge could apply additional damages, Hogan explained that they were not aware of that when they made their ruling.
Him claiming they weren't aware of that, suggests they weren't applying the instructions.
At about 10:20 when asked about willfulness and the judge could apply additional damages, Hogan explained that they were not aware of that when they made their ruling.
Him claiming they weren't aware of that, suggests they weren't applying the instructions.
Yes and no. BASF are experts in Materials Science and provide better materials through chemistry, for already invented products; hence their slogan.
BASF: The Chemical Company.
http://www.basf.com/group/products-and-industries/index
You need only look at the lines outside Apple stores on launch day to see why people don't wait a few months. To buy Samsung or even the same Apple product. People like to be first. And own what they consider the original/best.
Apple's incentive is and always has been to be the best and in some cases, first. That doesn't change because someone else is copying them. Their incentive unless they don't want to be in business is to keep momentum on their products.
I think somewhere you (and/or others) think that Apple would just decide to stop making iPhones or other products because another manufacturer has something similar. I think that's shoddy logic.
I'm not justifying Samsung's actions. I'm just commenting on the market place as a whole.
I agree. Making a lightbulb the way Thomas Edison did is "obvious today". It wasn't the day before he invented it, but it became "obvious" the next day. Does that mean he didn't deserved patent protection? Because suddenly, after they have seen his invention, they slapped their foreheads and said "of course!" ?
That's how it works with pretty much every invention under the sun!
Don't believe me? Try inventing something truly original! Something the world has never seen the likes of before. Try coming up with next year's hot got-to-have gadget.
... Or simply make a new mobile phone so unique and fresh, that it suddenly turns the mobile phone industry (Apple included) completely on its head! Go ahead. It's a free country. Heck, most of this WORLD is free. So stop complaining, and start showing us all how "easy" it is inventing "a rounded rectangle"...
Thanks, well said. Some people like to repeat "this stifles innovation" over and over and over without a shred of proof to back it up.
----------
Exactly what the jury did.
Yup.
It amazes me the number of people here that think the jury were idiots yet they don't know how many were actually on the jury.
I don't think either scenario stifles innovation. Fact is - if you're in business - you have to keep growing, changing and differentiating your products whether it's from your competition or internally.
Sure prevents that whole "building on the shoulders of giants" bit. I guess we'll have to go back to the much less efficient "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
The question raised wasn't whether or not they did or didn't. They question raised (and not by me) was whether or not they are/were qualified AND if the time they deliberated would be enough to qualify or disqualify a patent.
I was on a jury for a murder case. When we started deliberations my wife asked me how long it would take. My answer, "Depends on how long it takes for the rest of them to agree with me." It took one and a half days.