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

[charlituna]

Turning jurors into celebrities is bad for justice.

Yep, this guy is a total fame whore. Something tells me that he didn't lead the group quite the way he paints it either

----------

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?

Doesn't matter. A phone doesn't suddenly become not a copy because it's only on T-Mobile.

----------

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.

You can change carriers. So the question is moot

 

[rocknblogger]

No, that's like LG coming up with a new and innovative method to change inputs without the need to ever touch a "button", then Samsung deciding that there just going to copy it because it's "obvious". That was their whole defense. "We copied it because it's obvious" However no one can seem to explain why they didn't do it before Apple.

It's all in the timing. The short answer is that the technology didn't exist before to be able to do it. It's no accident that everyone almost at the same time came out with multitouch screens.

 

[gotluck]

It's all in the timing. The short answer is that the technology didn't exist before to be able to do it. It's no accident that everyone almost at the same time came out with multitouch screens.

However, this trend happens with nearly all advances in technology.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's all in the timing. The short answer is that the technology didn't exist before to be able to do it. It's no accident that everyone almost at the same time came out with multitouch screens.

Where did Apple get the technology then?

Apple had a shipping iPhone in June 2007.

Samsung's supposed "answer" to the iPhone was the Instinct... which came out one year later in June 2008.

And Samsung's first Android phone didn't come out until June 2009.

So it sounds like Apple really hit on something big... and everyone else followed.

 

[j4zb4]

This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.

But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.

But DOOOOOOOOOD...! THe 1st chef did not INVENT the vegetables and the spices and the meat and all that goes into it you know...

[/end sarcasm]

 

[ixodes]

No matter who you're for, or who you believe, this case is so complex that it's rather suspicious that they reached a verdict so soon.

I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory or anything close. What I am uncomfortable with is what seems like a lack of due diligence on the part of the jurors.

Everything about this case is bad, including the likelihood that it will have a long string of negative consequences that affect a large number of companies & people outside of both Samsung and Apple.

I have personally witnessed significant collateral damage in cases that were no where near as large as this one. Their is no winner. You'll see.

 

[rocknblogger]

Where did Apple get the technology then?

Apple had a shipping iPhone in June 2007.

Samsung's supposed "answer" to the iPhone was the Instinct... which came out one year later in June 2008.

And Samsung's first Android phone didn't come out until June 2009.

So it sounds like Apple really hit on something big... and everyone else followed.

I'm not disagreeing with you but the truth of the matter is that the tech did come together at the time Apple was ready to release a phone. They couldn't do it earlier even though they were working on it for a few years.

Once the tech became available Apple just happened to be ready but the others were already working on their own devices too. Did Samsung copy Apple? Sure I believe they did. But that doesn't change the fact that the tech became available at the right time for everyone.

I remember having an HTC phone around 2005 or so. It was a Windows 6.5 and it was all touch screen except for one center button like the iPhone (Similar, not the same). The only things you could do though was swipe left, up, down and right. It came with a small stylus and had hand writing recognition. It was a nice little phone but the lack of a multitouch screen was evident even by me. I even remember trying to zoom in by spreading thumb and forefinger on the screen. Obviously it didn't work. I guess my point is that if I could imagine such functionality it's hard to believe that Apple were the only ones to think of it too.

As I said before. It's all in the timing.

 

[tkwolf]

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.

Can you give me a list of every patent that samsung violated. I'm honestly still not convinced that this is just about patent issues. There ought to be a competition and right now I'm just not happy with apple's moves, suing anything that is rectangle.

 

[simpleankit]

Good. They need to win the appeal. Consumers do too. The litigation thugs of Apple need to stop suing over petty stuff like 'pinch-to-zoom.' That's like LG suing Panasonic for putting an 'input' button on their television remote.

I am confused about what pinch to zoom this lawsuit talking about when skyrocket and few other handsets do not infringe on that patent.

 

[Gnomepatrol]

We could say the same about some of the 12 loud-mouthed jurors who acquitted OJ Simpson Was the verdict overturned as a result? No.

Apparently you've never heard of double jeopardy durr. He was found guilty in civil court herp.

 

[skunnykart]

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.

Joseph Swan.

 

[pacalis]

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.

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

 

[rdlink]

Good. They need to win the appeal. Consumers do too. The litigation thugs of Apple need to stop suing over petty stuff like 'pinch-to-zoom.' That's like LG suing Panasonic for putting an 'input' button on their television remote.

Spoken like someone who's never really invented anything in their life...

 

[j4zb4]

When Apple decided to make their global message:

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

Obviously if Apple spends Billions in R&D and Samsung just copies it Samsung just has to cover manufacturing costs, whereas, Apple has to recover the R&D costs too... That's why there are patents... So the one who innovates can recover the R&D costs...

 

[Renzatic]

Obviously if Apple spends Billions in R&D and Samsung just copies it Samsung just has to cover manufacturing costs, whereas, Apple has to recover the R&D costs too... That's why there are patents... So the one who innovates can recover the R&D costs...

No, not really. It's not like Samsung saw that Apple had pinch-to-zoom, thought "hey, that's cool", then went to the store to pick up the necessary parts off the shelves. They had to find a way to implement their version of pinch-to-zoom. Which requires R&D costs on their end as well.

 

[Overg]

Yes it is a sad system.
The time you will need to educate 12 uninformed people in this kind of a trail, in order for them to make educated decision, is years, no lawyer on earth can do that.
Those people while on 'duty' want to go home, they don't care about Samsung or apple ( and this is a good interesting case, imagine what happen in murder trail when some unknown bum kill some other guy, why they should give any damn on that??)
Unbiased?? You kidding me, as far as I recall the trail was in US no? That already 12 biased people, how many Koreans set in the jury place?
I bet this kind of trail was a bit different if all the 12 people where from Korea...wouldn't you agree?

I believe that a well educated judges, who are not tricked easy, to some emotional manipulation, who are well trained and got knowledge in this field and judged in many trails like that, are MUCH better than 12 random people from the street.

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'.)


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.



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.



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



Sad analysis, really sad.

----------



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

 

[Sensation]

So 1 guy persuaded the rest of the clueless jury? Thats justice for you.

 

[bsolar]

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!" ?

Edison's lightbulb in fact might not have deserved patent protection, and for many years it was actually stripped of it: http://www.willitsell.com/edisnmth.asp

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.

The problem is that most of the patents in question are not "something the world has never seen", since there was prior art of them. Prior art that the jury decided not to evaluate because they are incompetent and the foreman convinced them it was a good idea to ignore the instructions they received.

Patents are the foundation of the sentence, and the jury decided not to check whether the foundations are solid, which is a huge neglicence.

 

[phentex]

what on earth is he saying ? O_O

 

[AppleMark]

Chefs do this and yet somehow restaurants still exist.

Indeed. But we are not talking about existing are we? We are talking about making a lot of money from an investment in innovation and design, you were able to 'prove' you thought of first.

How many restaurants are worth $153 Billion (Apple 2011 valuation figures)?

Even if you consider McDonalds to be food, then they are the highest valued chain worth $81 Billion (same figures and source as above). How much serious competition do McDonalds have....? Coincidence?

I think not..

 

[AppleMark]

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?

Anybody remember the Chinese X5 Clone, the CEO?

BMW remarkably lost this case in 2008, as they ruled that the cars look nothing alike!.

I bet BMW wish they had Velvin Hogan on that Jury!

 

[Maso1]

Anybody remember the Chinese X5 Clone, the CEO?

BMW remarkably lost this case in 2008, as they ruled that the cars look nothing alike!.

I bet BMW wish they had Velvin Hogan on that Jury!

Maybe they did.

BMW Wins Court Order to Ban Sales of Chinese X5 Clone in Germany

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/06/bmw-wins-court-order-to-ban-sales-of.html

 

[Bezetos]

This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.

But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.

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.

 

[samcraig]

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.

Yep, this guy is a total fame whore. Something tells me that he didn't lead the group quite the way he paints it either

----------



Doesn't matter. A phone doesn't suddenly become not a copy because it's only on T-Mobile.

----------



You can change carriers. So the question is moot

 

[bilbot25]

!

!