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

[Mike Valmike]

I wonder if the same result would have occurred if the trial was in S. Korea. Or if on neutral territory.

As I've mentioned before, that isn't how it works. This is court, not the Summer Olympics. It's not held at a "neutral site." Jurisdiction and venue are, by rule, tied to an involved party. Hence, a jury "of [your] peers."

Google "personal jurisdiction." The More You Know(Tm)!

 

[gnasher729]

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.

1. By law, company logos are _never_ considered part of any design patent. So a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone except for a totally unmissable Samsung logo _does_ by law infringe on Apple's design patents.

2. Many people wouldn't know who makes the iPhone. Some people think there are just two computer manufactures, Mac and Windows. My TV has "Samsung" written on it, so why wouldn't an iPhone have "Samsung" written on it?

 

[LagunaSol]

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.

You're right. My response to you based on your response to another poster was directed mostly at an earlier response regarding the jury foreman and should not have been targeted at you. My apologies.

 

[2bikes]

Happens often. And the incentive for the 1st chef is to create something continuously so the menu doesn't get stale and to continue to lure people to his or her restaurant instead.

Chefs do this and yet somehow restaurants still exist.

Happens so it must be Okay to do?
They still exist so whats the big deal?

This is why innovation needs to be protected. Because of POVs like these.

 

[samcraig]

Happens so it must be Okay to do?
They still exist so whats the big deal?

This is why innovation needs to be protected. Because of POVs like these.

We weren't arguing ethics, etc. We were stating it happens. Why introduce a straw man argument where there is none?

 

[2bikes]

We weren't arguing ethics, etc. We were stating it happens. Why introduce a straw man argument where there is none?

OK My bad. Thanks for stating the obvious.

Edit: I still think the argument there was very valid by the way.

 

[3GEE]

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.

Have you ever watched the 1957 move 12 Angry Men? Fantastic movie and the entire premise of the movie is about what you're suggesting shouldn't happen. "A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court."

They use this movie in business training to teach people to think independently and ensure that your views are heard, regardless of the common group-think.

An excellent movie.

 

[tongxinshe]

Law != common sense != morality != fairness.

Great summarization!

 

[Renzatic]

This is why innovation needs to be protected. Because of POVs like these.

I think the real issue here isn't Apple protecting their innovations and inventions from a bunch of copycats, rather that what they were protecting really their inventions to begin with.

For instance, Apple didn't come up with the concept for pinch-to-zoom. There's plenty of proof available all over the internet that shows as much. So why should they have a patent for it? Why was their patent not immediately invalidated when proof of prior art was shown? To me, the fact that Samsung used pinch-to-zoom in their products is secondary to these questions.

 

[tigres]

Not sure if this was posted, but I find it amazing that none of the jurors had iPhones themselves.

 

[samcraig]

Not sure if this was posted, but I find it amazing that none of the jurors had iPhones themselves.

Why?

First - if they had - they wouldn't have been jurors

Second - there are millions of people who don't have iPhones. SHOCKER!!!!

 

[Melab]

1. By law, company logos are _never_ considered part of any design patent. So a phone that looks exactly like an iPhone except for a totally unmissable Samsung logo _does_ by law infringe on Apple's design patents.

2. Many people wouldn't know who makes the iPhone. Some people think there are just two computer manufactures, Mac and Windows. My TV has "Samsung" written on it, so why wouldn't an iPhone have "Samsung" written on it?

I am sure most people know Apple "makes" the iPhone.

 

[Judas1]

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"...

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.) Its not obvious to to use tungsten (there's a lot of materials out there.) Its not obvious to put a screw at the end for easy installation and removal (its only obvious you need two nodes to power it but using a screw shape is novel.) Thats true innovation. You can glance at some of Apple's iphone implementations and see immediately why its done that way, and even the code to write the make it that way. Bounce, pinch and zoom, slideto unlock.

 

[Thunderchicken]

Patent law is a joke in order to establish a monopoly, because it stifles forward momentum due to not having to refine a product cause your competition work around a very limited scope. I agree on Samsung on squares with rounded corners, no one should be able to hold a patent on shapes.

 

[tigres]

Why?

First - if they had - they wouldn't have been jurors

Second - there are millions of people who don't have iPhones. SHOCKER!!!!

It is a shocker. Out of twelve people you know I am sure none of them including you have one.

 

[tongxinshe]

Damn, if that ban falls through, Samsung is going to be taking a massive hit!!

No, all of the banned products are no longer actively selling by now.

 

[sha4000]

I think so to. Without being there I thought this decision tilted too far in Apple
s favor and I also thought that the statements the foreman made were ill advised.

However, he does seem to be a highly considered guy, and defended the worst of his prior quoted comments very clearly and very fairly. I think damages will be reduce, but overall infringement claims are going to stick.

All that as one thing, he ends with "I'm a windows guy." Lol. Yup, MS is coming up right in the middle of this.

I kind of was thinking along your same lines. I looked for bias in that interview and couldn't really find it. Maybe he was coached very well after the fact but he really looked like he was thinking of his answers instead of repeating a script. I do believe that he felt he was the patent expert on the jury and kind of guided the non tech savvy jurors in his direction though.

 

[samcraig]

It is a shocker. Out of twelve people you know I am sure none of them including you have one.

I know dozens of people that don't have an iPhone. For that matter - I know dozens who don't even have a smart phone.

 

[Peace]

I kind of was thinking along your same lines. I looked for bias in that interview and couldn't really find it. Maybe he was coached very well after the fact but he really looked like he was thinking of his answers instead of repeating a script. I do believe that he felt he was the patent expert on the jury and kind of guided the non tech savvy jurors in his direction though.

Coached ? By whom ?

Do you really believe Apple lawyers spoke to the jurors after the trial ?

 

[samcraig]

Coached ? By whom ?

Do you really believe Apple lawyers spoke to the jurors after the trial ?

I can see it...

 

[Mark Booth]

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

Brilliant.

Speaking of uninformed, there were nine jurors, not twelve.

Mark

----------

Watched the video, very good insight on the trial and process!

+100

Best comment in the thread!

Mark

----------

I know dozens of people that don't have an iPhone. For that matter - I know dozens who don't even have a smart phone.

Myself, I try to avoid hanging out with troglodytes!

Mark

 

[ixodes]

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 too have been involved in some high stakes corp. cases. The tragedy is reality goes out the window due to technical details so complex that neither the judge or jury can understand. Especially after the respective lawyers put their spin on it.

At the end of the day, no one truly wins. No matter the verdict or size of the award.

There's nothing quite as fair and appropriate, as competing in the open market place. It's a time tested method that reflects the actual worth of the product.

Given the fact that in that arena, Apple was already the victor, why they were so determined to sue for copying, the very violation Apple committed years prior in the Steve Jobs era, is ironic. Apple's hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again.

Don't get me wrong, if indeed Samsung was a violator, they should face consequences. Yet to impact the entire tech sector as Apple has, due to their overwhelming power & influence, is harmful to all.

There's more than one way to deal with this. Unfortunately the past CEO's ego & desire for attention by demonstrating his power, overruled creating a better strategy.

 

[sha4000]

Coached ? By whom ?

Do you really believe Apple lawyers spoke to the jurors after the trial ?

Ok keep that kind of non sense with the posters that you have been going back and forth with previously. Did I even mention Apple in my post? Stop looking for something to attack when there is none. I'm talking about maybe his own Ppl or agents. Whoever got him the deal for the interview. Obviously when you do these kind of interviews you have to choose your words carefully or else they can be construed the wrong way like everyone is doing in this thread already. I actually think he was being honest.

 

[chiodo]

Can someone explain to me how the apple software not being able to run in the prior art validates apples patent?

 

[denaliOnDubs]

Ahhhhh such a good feeling.

Didn't come up as subscriber for me. But here is part of the article

At the same time, since the jury found that Samsung had "willfully" infringed Apple patents, Judge Koh has the power to triple the damage award, and order to Samsung to pay court costs and Apple's attorneys fees, said Alan M. Fisch, an intellectual-property with Kaye Scholer LLP who isn't involved in the case.