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

[KnightWRX]

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'.

Patent infringement is not about wholesale copying, nor were many of the handsets "wholesale copying". The jury just happens to think they looked like a drawing. Patent infringement is about being "close enough" to the claims in the patents, which when the patent itself is a rectangle with rounded corners (D'677 and D'889), well, not much you can do.

The Galaxy S III is a perfect example of how Samsung *should* have done their work in the first place.

Then apparently, you don't agree with Apple :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96194759/12-06-05-Apple-Motion-on-Galaxy-S-III

 

[aristotle]

A couple of questions.
1. When did this become Samsung fan central?
2. Which video were you Samsung fans watching?

It does not seem to be the same one because I came to a different conclusion.

I thought he explained the process they went through quite well and it seems as if some of you were only willing to see it go Samsung's way.

I think Samsung make great components such as the Samsung panel in my new MBP but I will never by a Samsung branded product on principle because of their lack of business ethics. They were warned by both Apple and Google but they did not listen and willfully infringed on the UI patents.

 

[KnightWRX]

A couple of questions.
1. When did this become Samsung fan central?
2. Which video were you Samsung fans watching?

Ah not this strawman again. How many times do we need to burn it down ?

 

[LagunaSol]

The errors in the verdict form alone are a clear example of the lack of due diligence.

Perhaps a few errors on a form with 700 questions are inevitable. That has nothing to do with the overall judgment of guilt.

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.

Yeah, it's a procedural error. The jurors are human. Again, it has nothing to do with the overall judgment of guilt.

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.

Apparently the evidence was so overwhelming that they didn't need to talk about it for two more months.

I know you guys want to believe that Samsung isn't a shameless copycat completely devoid of originality, just as OJ Simpson could have never killed his wife, but come on. Take off your Google Goggles for one minute.

How many days of deliberation before a guilty verdict would have satisfied you? 5? 10? 30? My guess: it wouldn't have mattered to you if they had deliberated for a year. You only wanted to see Samsung exonerated.

 

[lazard]

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

even if said customers didn't realize that the iPhone was exclusive with AT&T, the huge ass Samsung logo on the front is a dead giveaway...unless they also thought Samsung manufactured the iPhone.

 

[SPUY767]

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.

If you think that what a juror says, outside of "We don't like those slant-eyed koreans and wanted Samsung to pay money!" has any bearing on the appeal, you don't know much about how the court of appeals works.

 

[tbrinkma]

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 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 drug cases) the people (public) weren't completely decided after the trial and could see both sides. It really only takes one or two people to give a clear, rational, and informed arguments supported by the facts to convince those on the fence. It's quite scary actually esp if you are sending someone to prison.

Really, it's remarkably less scary if you don't implicitly assume that 'undecided' means 'confused, vulnerable, and weak-willed', or that 'confident' means 'strong-willed, irrational, and overbearing'.

(Yes, it's entirely possible that that's what you ran into , but that would, fortunately, be the exception rather than the rule. )

 

[bawbac]

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.

And most jurors just want to get it over with and get on with their lives.
When it's about corperate disputes, they could careless and toss a coin to get the jury duty over with.
The verdict decision seemed way to quick with no thorough analysis or debating of "facts."
They have no vested interested so the biggest bully/juror wins.

 

[tbrinkma]

Patent infringement is not about wholesale copying, nor were many of the handsets "wholesale copying". The jury just happens to think they looked like a drawing. Patent infringement is about being "close enough" to the claims in the patents, which when the patent itself is a rectangle with rounded corners (D'677 and D'889), well, not much you can do.



Then apparently, you don't agree with Apple :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96194759/12-06-05-Apple-Motion-on-Galaxy-S-III

I was speaking in regard to the design patents. I should have been clearer. I'll go back and add a note.

 

[LagunaSol]

Having been a foreman, I can say that it is not a foreman's job to advocate for the plaintiff or defendant.

Of course the foreman can express his or her own opinions

CONTRADICTION ALERT!

The foreman is not a neutral party - he's a member of the jury just like everyone else. His opinion will, of course, favor either plaintiff or defendant.

That doesn't make him a partisan. It makes him a juror.

All jurors are presumed to be neutral once they are selected (hence the jury screening/selection process). The jurors then hear the legal arguments, formulate their own opinions, and argue those opinions with other members of the jury. Of course you know this, having served on a jury. But your implication of some sort of requirement for jury foreman neutrality is baseless.

The desperation around here to see Samsung let off the hook in what, from nearly all angles looks like a slam dunk guilty verdict, is baffling.

Oh wait, the winner was Apple. Not so baffling after all I suppose.

 

[tbrinkma]

even if said customers didn't realize that the iPhone was exclusive with AT&T, the huge ass Samsung logo on the front is a dead giveaway...unless they also thought Samsung manufactured the iPhone.

Two things:
1) From a design patent, or trade dress perspective, logos are *not* considered distinguishing features. This is intentional.
2) You'd be amazed how many people out there will tell you they have an HTC, Samsung, or Nokia 'iPhone'. (It really doesn't give you much faith in humanity when someone shows you their brand new *actual* iPhone, and tells you, in all seriousness, to "look at this cool new Samsung iPhone I got!". Yes. Really.)

 

[NakedPaulToast]

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.)

I am summerizing. Here is the link to the instructions.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1903.pdf

The relavant text:

You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later. (page 29)

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Should it matter?

Yes. Apple lost no business to people buying t-mo android phones regardless if they looked like the iphone or not (which is debatable for some models). I was wondering if the jury took that into account they looked at sales numbers of certain models.

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?

Ugh, no thanks. I'm not getting dragged into talking about cars in a hypothetical chinese mustang lawsuit.

But holding my iphone 4s up to my screen, this doesn't look like a clone to me, and pinch to zoom or bounce back scrolling wouldn't have made me mistake this for an Apple product:

Perhaps customers are more stupid than I think, though. That phone is on apple's squash list. I think that's unreasonable, but then again I don't think one should be able to trademark gestures/movements on an input device to trigger software actions, either.

 

[petsounds]

All jurors are presumed to be neutral once they are selected (hence the jury screening/selection process). The jurors then hear the legal arguments, formulate their own opinions, and argue those opinions with other members of the jury. Of course you know this, having served on a jury. But your implication of some sort of requirement for jury foreman neutrality is baseless.

I never implied that a person who is assigned to be a foreman is neutral. A juror who acts as foreman assumes a dual-role -- the foreman role is to administrate the proceedings, and the juror role is as a juror. The post I replied to implied that a foreman was responsible for shaping discussion, and I was refuting that. Please don't misinterpret my words to further your fanboy arguments.

 

[richpjr]

It really only takes one or two people to give a clear, rational, and informed arguments supported by the facts to convince those on the fence.

Do not agree with this wording - it takes someone with a strong personality and power of persuasion. Clear, rational and informed aren't essential (see the O.J. verdict).

The amount of time spent in deliberation seems to me to be a fraction of what it should have been to given 700 different items careful attention.

Why is it that if people don't agree with the decision that they are jumped on as Samsung fanboys? All my computers and phones are Apple, I have never owned a Samsung phone and I am not real comfortable with this verdict.

 

[farmboy]

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.

Your understanding of juries, and appealable errors, needs some work.

 

[LagunaSol]

Yes. Apple lost no business to people buying t-mo android phones regardless if they looked like the iphone or not (which is debatable for some models).

Not necessarily true. A consumer is not bound to buy from a specific carrier.

If someone decides "Hey, I can get something exactly like the iPhone for less money and from a cheaper carrier," then yes, that is lost business for Apple.

 

[farmboy]

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.

You have never been able to literally build on someone else's patent without their permission. Think of it this way: if I have a patent on a bicycle with two wheels, a handle bar and a certain frame, you can't take that design and add lights and fenders and get a patent on it. The idea is that you have to find your own way to do it (or wait for 20 years).

That's why patents encourage--demand--innovation.

 

[jayducharme]

I just read Jeff Macke's take on the trial. His main point is the irony of it all, that Apple has been refining other peoples' ideas since its inception.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/apple-owns-everything-phone-132401289.html

 

[LagunaSol]

Please don't misinterpret my words to further your fanboy arguments.

To go along with the "fanboy" jury decision I suppose?

Samsung and Apple both had equal opportunity to present their case to a jury they both agreed to. After hearing the extensive evidence, the jury voted overwhelmingly and decisively against Samsung. Yet somehow this decision is tainted because they only deliberated for 3 days, or because the jury foreman is a patent holder, or the jury foreman just so happened to be the juror who presented the most compelling opinion, or because they goofed up on a couple of lines on the form, or because the case was tried in California, or whatever?

Which is the fanboy side here?

 

[AppleFan1984]

When did this become Samsung fan central?

When Apple decided to make their global message:

"Samsung! Samsung! Samsung! Samsung! Samsung! Samsung is the same as the stuff we charge more for!"

http://gigaom.com/2012/08/25/counterintuitive-did-samsung-emerge-a-winner/

----------

Yeah. Cause making a few errors that changed the total from $1,051,000,000 to $1,049,000,000 is quite serious.

The error wasn't arithmetic, but conceptual: they were awarding damages on phones they found did not infringe.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

----------

Then apparently, you don't agree with Apple

Apparently there are others who don't agree with Apple:

Apple ordered to run Samsung 'did not copy iPad' adverts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384

 

[noripwr]

Or did they just assume that people WOULD have bought an iPhone had they not been "confused" by a phone on a different carrier that doesn't even carry Apple's iPhone?

You know I keep reading people stating the same thing. I don't think "confusion" is meant that people are confused to the point they'll purchase a Samsung phone, bring it home, and say "Hey this isn't an iPhone!".

I think what they're trying to argue about is that the "confusion" leads to people saying "Hey, this functions similarly, perhaps better, and looks like an iPhone. Side-by-side, these Samsungs are cheaper so I'll take one instead of the Apple"


I feel that's what they're trying to get at because in some markets (and especially with knockoffs), if a [cheaper] product A looks great and functions similarly to the genuine deal, people will get product A.


To tell you the truth I had mistaken a Galaxy phone for the iPhone before. But only because the screens were off though, and I don't think any salesperson actually shows the boot-up screen to a customer. But I'm tech-savvy enough to know the difference between the two and that they are two different OSes.

 

[JGowan]

Many jurors take a very passive role in the Juror's Room, listening to hear what others think. Others are very opinionated. I was the Foreman in a murder trial. Let me tell you,... it can get very hot between just a few people quickly. And then there are those that sit by, listening and waiting to decide. I watched this guy... there was no problem with anything he said.

 

[LagunaSol]

Apple ordered to run Samsung 'did not copy iPad' adverts

Fortunately for Samsung in the U.S. case, they weren't ordered to run "We are copying weasels" ads in the U.S. in addition to the billion+ in damages.

 

[petsounds]

[...] Yet somehow this decision is tainted because they only deliberated for 3 days, or because the jury foreman is a patent holder, or the jury foreman just so happened to be the juror who presented the most compelling opinion, or because they goofed up on a couple of lines on the form, or because the case was tried in California, or whatever?

Which is the fanboy side here?

Please quote where I said this decision is tainted. I don't appreciate you attributing a viewpoint to me that I have not stated here. Why don't you take a breather from this site, come back, and then start actually reading what people have to say before you jump down their throats.