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

[LagunaSol]

Even jurors from a state infamous for letting OJ Simpson get away with murder were able to see Samsung's true nature. Some things are just to obvious to miss.

The fact it only took them 3 days to decide doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do their due diligence. It means the evidence was overwhelming and Samsung's guilt was a slam dunk.

Hire some designers, Samsung.

 

[Lark.Landon]

Do a lot of Samsung's phones look like iPhones?

Yes.

Does it look like a blatant rip-off?

Yes.

Would you get pissed if someone copied your product in the same manner?

Yes/No?

 

[MacDav]

So one man led a 12 man jury to agree with him because he thought he was right!.

That's what you got from this video? People see and hear what they want to I guess. It would be interesting to hear from more than one member of the jury. Less easy then for people to make wild leaps of biased assumption.

 

[LagunaSol]

Some of the phones Apple wants banned are sold on networks that don't have the iPhone, so Apple wouldn't have made sales there anyway. Did the jury take that into account?

Should it matter? If, say, Ford doesn't sell the Mustang in China, does that mean there is no legitimate legal recourse against a Chinese company that builds and sells a Mustang clone?

 

[samcraig]

Should it matter? If, say, Ford doesn't sell the Mustang in China, does that mean there is no legitimate legal recourse against a Chinese company that builds and sells a Mustang clone?

You're missing the point.

If the damages are weighted based on handsets that violate the patent and some of those handsets were never in competition with the iPhone - then the question is whether or not they should be eliminated from the formula.

 

[rjohnstone]

Even jurors from a state infamous for letting OJ Simpson get away with murder were able to see Samsung's true nature. Some things are just to obvious to miss.

The fact it only took them 3 days to decide doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do their due diligence. It means the evidence was overwhelming and Samsung's guilt was a slam dunk.

Hire some designers, Samsung.

If only it were that simple.
But it's not.

The errors in the verdict form alone are a clear example of the lack of due diligence.
Finding financial damages for products where they indicated no infringement was found tells me they were in a hurry to leave, not perform due diligence.

700 question deliberated for less than 2 minutes each and failing to follow the judges orders that were written in in jury instructions TWICE = rushed.

 

[tbrinkma]

No **** sherlock.
But it's not the foreman's duty to decide for the rest of the jury or to even convince the rest that his way is right.

One of the foreman's primary responsibilities:
"He or she decides how the evidence is reviewed and assures that all evidence and arguments made during the trial are considered."

With 700 questions being decided in 2 1/2 days, that means they averaged less than 2 minutes per question.
That's barely enough time for a thorough first pass let alone the final verdict.

Do you really think that every question on the form took 2 minutes (or more) to answer?
Based on the jury forms I've seen, there are a lot of situations where you have multistage questions where answering the first stage or two often gives you all of the information you need to *very quickly* answer the rest of the questions in the chain (often in a matter of seconds without further debate). In other words, a few of the questions take up the bulk of your time, and the rest end up being 'no brainers' as a result of the earlier discussions and decisions.

 

[lazard]

Should it matter? If, say, Ford doesn't sell the Mustang in China, does that mean there is no legitimate legal recourse against a Chinese company that builds and sells a Mustang clone?

except the whole point of the damages was to compensate Apple for lost customers that were confused about whether they were buying an iPhone or a Samsung phone. Since the iPhone was only available via AT&T, you can't lose a confused customer if the offending phone was not available with AT&T to begin with.

 

[tbrinkma]

While I agree with the trail results, I have to admit that the jury system in USA is ridiculous!

Really? Taking an unbiased group, and giving both sides an equal opportunity to educate that group on the issues involved in the case is 'ridiculous'? It's pretty much the same system that half the civilized world uses. The other half is pretty much split between court-appointed experts working directly with a judge, and older 'trial by ambush' methodologies where the defense doesn't get to see the evidence against them until the trial starts. (Exactly what the split is depends on where you draw the line for what is considered the 'civilized world'.)

How can 12 uniformed people, who have no idea

what so ever in technology, can decide in such trail.

It's the duty and responsibility of the plaintiff and defense to inform and educate the jury on the information they need to *make* an informed decision. If either side is left with an uninformed jury at the end of the trial, it's because they failed in their duty to inform them.

All they want is to go home and get over with.

No evidence of that based on what any juror has said at this point. Unsupported speculation isn't going to win you a debate, except possibly with people who already agree with you.

Seeing this movie prove my point.

What movie? (No context here for me to figure out what word you meant to use.)

Sad justice system, really sad.

Sad analysis, really sad.

----------

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.

Actually, the foreman's *wife*, not the foreman, had a Samsung phone that wasn't a smartphone.

 

[rjohnstone]

Do you really think that every question on the form took 2 minutes (or more) to answer?
Based on the jury forms I've seen, there are a lot of situations where you have multistage questions where answering the first stage or two often gives you all of the information you need to *very quickly* answer the rest of the questions in the chain (often in a matter of seconds without further debate). In other words, a few of the questions take up the bulk of your time, and the rest end up being 'no brainers' as a result of the earlier discussions and decisions.

The verdict form and instructions were posted online.
They were not that simple.

The question of patent validity was totally ignored as one of the jurors stated that the prior art arguments were skipped in some cases because it was "bogging them down".

2 minutes per questions is a simple average of how long they deliberated to reach a verdict (21 hours). It averages out to approx. 2 minutes each.

 

[tbrinkma]

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.

Not at all. He also goes on to explain that the jury was kept from the room when the judge was ruling on various motions in order to keep them from being 'contaminated' by non-evidence. The jury doesn't need to know that the judge has the option of increasing the penalty if the infringement was willful in order to know what the criteria are to determine whether the infringement was willful.

----------

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.

Not even a little. There's nothing in this case that says you can't be inspired by, or even take ideas from, a competitor's product. You just can't copy it wholesale, even doing an analysis of where you differ and providing 'fixes' which amount to 'do it like they did it'.

The Galaxy S III is a perfect example of how Samsung *should* have done their work in the first place. It takes the best aspects of their prior work, *and* their competitor's prior work, and builds upon them while producing a product which is quite distinct from that same competitor's work.

And, from what I've seen, it's a very nice phone. (Some will like it more than the iPhone, some not so much.)

Note: KnightWRX has made me aware that I wasn't as clear about what I was discussing as I had intended. I was referring to the design patents issues, not any of the utility patent issues.

 

[MacDav]

The fact that Google told Samsung to back off, that they were too close to Apple's implementation, says it all I think. How can you argue against that. Even Google knew Samsung was headed for trouble down that road. They marched ahead anyway. This seems very clear. The debate about whether the patent system needs to be overhauled, is another debate.

 

[G4DP]

Even jurors from a state infamous for letting OJ Simpson get away with murder were able to see Samsung's true nature. Some things are just to obvious to miss.

The fact it only took them 3 days to decide doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do their due diligence. It means the evidence was overwhelming and Samsung's guilt was a slam dunk.

Hire some designers, Samsung.

No it means that they took the advice of a patent holder thinking he was a patent expert - something this guy clearly isn't. In other words they were dumb and stupid. He should not have been allowed on the jury. The judge should have dismissed him at the very start of the selection process.

He took control and swayed the others with his own bias. They didn't give the 700 questions adequate thought, let alone pay attention to what the judge was telling them.

He needs to shut up, in fact all of the jurors should have kept their mouths shut, but I guess everyone wants 2 minutes of fame.

He needs to hope that his patent hasn't been used by any company with a connection to Apple. Otherwise he will be in a whole world of hurt.

 

[petsounds]

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.

It's called being the foreman, genius.

Having been a foreman, I can say that it is not a foreman's job to advocate for the plaintiff or defendant. The foreman's role is to make sure the deliberations run smoothly, call for voting, communicate with the judge, et al. It is not using the role as a platform to influence opinion. Of course the foreman can express his or her own opinions, but you seem to suggest that being foreman grants you some power to mold the discussion of the other jurors. What he did is something any of the jurors could have done; being a foreman has nothing to do with it.

 

[NakedPaulToast]

Not at all. He also goes on to explain that the jury was kept from the room when the judge was ruling on various motions in order to keep them from being 'contaminated' by non-evidence. The jury doesn't need to know that the judge has the option of increasing the penalty if the infringement was willful in order to know what the criteria are to determine whether the infringement was willful.

But since the instructions stated the judge would apply extra damages because of willfullnes, his statement about not being aware that she could, can not be accurate.

 

[tbrinkma]

Ya. Me too. I asked yesterday in one of the many threads and all I got was the typical non answer answer..

But I think Samsung has to pay the fees .

It depends on a lot of factors, and will be something the judge decides at a later date (after the appropriate post-trial motions are filed).

 

[glemmestad]

You're missing the point.

If the damages are weighted based on handsets that violate the patent and some of those handsets were never in competition with the iPhone - then the question is whether or not they should be eliminated from the formula.

I don't know how it works in the US, but over here in Norway you don't get assigned to a certain network when you are born, and only have to choose phones offered on that network for the rest of your life. You can actually choose BOTH which phone you want to buy, AND which network to buy it from (I know... Heavy stuff).

I can even change to another network, if I like the phones they are offering more than the phones my current network is offering.

So phone A from network 1 competes directly with phone S from network 2.

"Should I buy a Samsung iPhone from T-Mobile (cheap!) or an expensive Apple iPhone on AT&T?"

 

[tbrinkma]

You're missing the point.

If the damages are weighted based on handsets that violate the patent and some of those handsets were never in competition with the iPhone - then the question is whether or not they should be eliminated from the formula.

'Not available on the same carrier' is only the same as 'not in competition with' if the two carriers don't compete. Phones which weren't available for sale in the US were removed from the case (due to lack of jurisdiction, I believe).

----------

If only it were that simple.
But it's not.

The errors in the verdict form alone are a clear example of the lack of due diligence.
Finding financial damages for products where they indicated no infringement was found tells me they were in a hurry to leave, not perform due diligence.

700 question deliberated for less than 2 minutes each and failing to follow the judges orders that were written in in jury instructions TWICE = rushed.

It tells me that once they'd decided on the appropriate rate (14%, compared to Samsung's claimed 13%, and Apples 23%) someone took a few moments to run the numbers on all of the devices. Then, when they were totaling up the final value, the accidentally included a couple values they shouldn't have. The fact that they could be spotted so quickly by the judge, and *fixed* so quickly by the jury is evidence that they *had* done their due diligence. (And perhaps evidence that they should have re-checked their numbers one more time.)

----------

except the whole point of the damages was to compensate Apple for lost customers that were confused about whether they were buying an iPhone or a Samsung phone. Since the iPhone was only available via AT&T, you can't lose a confused customer if the offending phone was not available with AT&T to begin with.

That assumes everyone who was thus confused didn't see the Samsung phone in the store and think that the AT&T exclusive period had ended. (Or knew about the exclusivity agreement in the first place.) Suffice it to say, we here at MacRumors are *exceptionally* well educated on that particular fact, compared to the typical consumer.

 

[glemmestad]

If only it were that simple.
But it's not.

The errors in the verdict form alone are a clear example of the lack of due diligence.
Finding financial damages for products where they indicated no infringement was found tells me they were in a hurry to leave, not perform due diligence.

700 question deliberated for less than 2 minutes each and failing to follow the judges orders that were written in in jury instructions TWICE = rushed.

Yeah. Cause making a few errors that changed the total from $1,051,000,000 to $1,049,000,000 is quite serious. Especially on a 700-question form. I mean....jeeez!!

And the judge spotted the errors. That's what she is there for. No mistrial. Apple wins. Fatality!

 

[tbrinkma]

No it means that they took the advice of a patent holder thinking he was a patent expert - something this guy clearly isn't. In other words they were dumb and stupid. He should not have been allowed on the jury. The judge should have dismissed him at the very start of the selection process.

He took control and swayed the others with his own bias. They didn't give the 700 questions adequate thought, let alone pay attention to what the judge was telling them.

He needs to shut up, in fact all of the jurors should have kept their mouths shut, but I guess everyone wants 2 minutes of fame.

He needs to hope that his patent hasn't been used by any company with a connection to Apple. Otherwise he will be in a whole world of hurt.

IOW: "G4DP doesn't agree with the verdict, therefore the jury was incompetent."


You have a number of very bold allegations in your post. It's unfortunate that you don't have any facts which actually support them.

Neither Samsung nor Apple objected to this fellow being on the jury. Why on earth should the judge have done so?

----------

But since the instructions stated the judge would apply extra damages because of willfullnes, his statement about not being aware that she could, can not be accurate.

Hold on. Are you summarizing, or did the instructions actually say the judge *WOULD* apply extra damages because of willfulness? (Because I can't believe that such wording wouldn't have been *loudly* objected to by Samsung.)

If you're summarizing supply a link. (I wasn't aware until earlier in the thread that the jury instructions were available online, and I don't have a link handy.)

 

[rjohnstone]

It tells me that once they'd decided on the appropriate rate (14%, compared to Samsung's claimed 13%, and Apples 23%) someone took a few moments to run the numbers on all of the devices. Then, when they were totaling up the final value, the accidentally included a couple values they shouldn't have. The fact that they could be spotted so quickly by the judge, and *fixed* so quickly by the jury is evidence that they *had* done their due diligence. (And perhaps evidence that they should have re-checked their numbers one more time.)

Yeah. Cause making a few errors that changed the total from $1,051,000,000 to $1,049,000,000 is quite serious. Especially on a 700-question form. I mean....jeeez!!

And the judge spotted the errors. That's what she is there for. No mistrial. Apple wins. Fatality!

The judge didn't spot the errors, Samsung's attorneys did.

 

[tbrinkma]

Yeah. Cause making a few errors that changed the total from $1,051,000,000 to $1,049,000,000 is quite serious. Especially on a 700-question form. I mean....jeeez!!

And the judge spotted the errors. That's what she is there for. No mistrial. Apple wins. Fatality!

Precisely. So far there's no evidence that the jury did anything improper. They came back with a verdict with which some people disagree. (Given the 'audience' here, that was going to happen no matter *what* verdict they reached.)

It's not a 'fatality' just yet, and won't be until the (inevitable) appeals are decided, but unless some *actual* misconduct comes to light, there's no cause for the jury bashing that's going on here.

----------

The verdict form and instructions were posted online.
They were not that simple.

Wait. Are you saying there were *no* questions which could be answered without significant individual debate, even after other, related questions were debated and answered?

The question of patent validity was totally ignored as one of the jurors stated that the prior art arguments were skipped in some cases because it was "bogging them down".

Your claim that "the question of patent validity was totally ignored" goes directly *contrary* to what we've heard from juror interviews. In fact, he specifically states (when finally given the opportunity to fully answer a related question without being interrupted with another question), that they moved on when things bogged down, but later came back to those questions, and by that point the issues which had bogged them down had been made clear by their debates over the other questions.

There's absolutely nothing unusual about that, and it in no way implies that they simply 'skipped' something.

2 minutes per questions is a simple average of how long they deliberated to reach a verdict (21 hours). It averages out to approx. 2 minutes each.

Yes. I understand what an average is. In fact, my post (to which you just responded) should have made that plenty clear. If, for example, it takes me 20 minutes to fill out a medical form with 50 questions on it, it does *not* follow that I spent less than 30 seconds on each question. It likely means that I spent about 10 minutes answering a few of the questions, but was able to answer the rest of them very quickly because their answers were short and/or obvious.

Assuming that because the average time for something is small that, therefore, the time allotted was insufficient assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[crazytrain]

except the whole point of the damages was to compensate Apple for lost customers that were confused about whether they were buying an iPhone or a Samsung phone. Since the iPhone was only available via AT&T, you can't lose a confused customer if the offending phone was not available with AT&T to begin with.

Hmmm, except of course that 'any' phone on 'any' network can compete with the iPhone.

Also, if a customer is confused between the different models/makes of phone, what makes you think they are going to be any wiser about networks?

So, if (and I totally accept that you can debate about whether or not it did happen...) a 'confused' customer sees a Samsung phone and thinks 'oh there's that iPhone I've heard so much about', the fact that it isn't available on AT&T is utterly and completely irrelevant. The confused customer could still buy the phone on another network as they know nothing about AT&T exclusivity for the iPhone

 

[tbrinkma]

The judge didn't spot the errors, Samsung's attorneys did.

Yep. Sorry. My bad.

That doesn't change the point, though.

 

[inlovewithi]

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.

I agreed. I was horrified when I was one.