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

[kdarling]

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.

As I've opined before, deciding trade dress infringement is one thing; that's mostly visuals and intent.

However, I agree with Judge Posner that jurors should not decide patent cases in a few days, when it takes weeks and months for _experts_ to decide individual patent validity and infringement.

Similar patents are before the ITC and getting a year's worth of examination from experienced judges, and yet nine people (really just one) off the street are allowed to do the same in a few hours, and with monetary awards.

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.

Exactly. Ideas are cheap, and that's all that Apple's patents contain: the idea written in fancy prose. Get some touch programmers around a table with booze and every gesture you can think of will come out

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.

That's why people think software patents are bad. Give a problem to a group of programmers, and you'll get a lot of similar solutions. This happens all over the world every day without them being aware of others doing the same thing.

Apple itself would never have existed without freely using the ideas of many who came before them, and/or being able to do new things simultaneously with others of the time.

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

Apple's immense wealth demonstrates that they've been well rewarded for being first to market. They need only continue to innovate.

 

[tbrinkma]

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)

Which, you'll note, *doesn't* actually say anything about the judge being able to increase the amount based on a willfulness finding. It only says that willfulness shouldn't affect the damage award calculated by the jury.

You and I both know that willfulness can treble damages, but if the members of the jury *aren't* aware of that, the text you quoted doesn't tell them that.

 

[linuxcooldude]

As I've opined before, deciding trade dress infringement is one thing; that's mostly visuals and intent.

However, I agree with Judge Posner that jurors should not decide patent cases in a few days, when it takes weeks and months for _experts_ to decide individual patent validity and infringement.

Similar patents are before the ITC and getting a year's worth of examination from experienced judges, and yet nine people (really just one) off the street are allowed to do the same in a few hours, and with monetary awards.



Exactly. Ideas are cheap, and that's all that Apple's patents contain: the idea written in fancy prose. Get some touch programmers around a table with booze and every gesture you can think of will come out



That's why people think software patents are bad. Give a problem to a group of programmers, and you'll get a lot of similar solutions. This happens all over the world every day without them being aware of others doing the same thing.

Apple itself would never have existed without freely using the ideas of many who came before them, and/or being able to do new things simultaneously with others of the time.



Apple's immense wealth demonstrates that they've been well rewarded for being first to market. They need only continue to innovate.

Yet we have average joes deciding the fate of a human being in a murder trial.

I don't see many people complaining about that.

Once the willful intent of infringement was clear, it was easy for the jury to decide what the courts course of action to take. So three days does not seem that far off.

The common people seem to have much more common sense then a panel of judges.

 

[tbrinkma]

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

Actually, he was found *liable* in civil court.

(Which, from a conceptual stand-point baffles me. I've just been *cleared* of committing murder, in part because the some of the prosecution's evidence was planted, and other evidence which the prosecution calls critical and definitive simply doesn't fit, and now I'm being told that I'm responsible for the wrongful death of the person who I was just cleared of murdering. Yes, I'm aware that it's two different standards of proof, but still. I just had a criminal court say, nope this guy is innocent.)

 

[lazard]

"The home-town jury and the sheer mass of accusations aside, Thomas Carey, a partner at Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers, a major intellectual property (IP) law firm and chair of its Business Practice Group, said, “Clearly there will be an appeal to the Federal Circuit. Among other things, the challenge will likely include the question of whether the "look and feel" patents involve eligible subject matter, or whether they are too much akin to a mathematical algorithm to warrant patentability. The principal patent claims all involve 'a computer implemented method,' which to some folks strays over the line into unpatentable material.”

As Carey points out though, “It is possible that the Federal Circuit will reverse. If they do not, there is a decent chance that the Supreme Court will take an interest in this. SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] has been all over the map lately concerning what is and is not protectable; and this may be a chance for them to clarify (or further confuse) the subject.” If that were the case, Apple could ultimately lose big."

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-v-samsung-the-legal-aftershocks-7000003268/

 

[tbrinkma]

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

I'll just go ahead and point out the obvious, since a lot of people seem to miss it...

Different laws can give different results when applied to the same set of facts.
Different countries have different laws.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise when very similar (or the same) cases in different countries come back with (sometimes drastically) different results.

----------

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.

You're right. So it's a good thing the jury *DIDN'T DO THAT*. Apple's claim was for 23%. Samsung said the number should only be 13%. The jury analyzed the evidence and decided that the *actual* number was 14%.
(It's right there in the video.)

 

[chirpie]

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.

Go watch 12 Angry Men.

;-)

 

[Maso1]

I'll just go ahead and point out the obvious, since a lot of people seem to miss it...

Different laws can give different results when applied to the same set of facts.
Different countries have different laws.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise when very similar (or the same) cases in different countries come back with (sometimes drastically) different results.

The results are not very different in the current comparison (Apple/BMW vs. clones), despite all other differences. That, to me, is obvious.

 

[AppleMark]

That's why people think software patents are bad. Give a problem to a group of programmers, and you'll get a lot of similar solutions. This happens all over the world every day without them being aware of others doing the same thing.

Apple itself would never have existed without freely using the ideas of many who came before them, and/or being able to do new things simultaneously with others of the time.

This is not true in the case of the iPad and iPhone. As you would probably know, the problem of designing a viable touch screen tablet has been an egg nobody had been able to crack until the iPhone/iPad.

Samsung have proven this by copying them. Your argument would only stand if the products were released around the same time, or patents submitted at the same time and then disputed on that basis.

Also Apple paid or licensed innovations on it's rise to success. It paid Bill Gates to write software and it paid for the the GUI interface required to use it . We all now know it as the mouse...

As far as I am aware Samsung refused to 'pay-now', choosing to 'pay-later'. Otherwise surely the shoe would be on the other foot and Apple would be paying out 1 Billon Dollars....

----------

Apple's immense wealth demonstrates that they've been well rewarded for being first to market. They need only continue to innovate.

That was exactly the point I was making. I also have no issue with this.

 

[liavman]

The partisan bickering in this thread is quite astonishing. I can understand that if one comes from a pro-android, pro-samsung or anti-apple camp, the decision may be unpalatable but trashing the jury after watching the video means you are letting emotion overtake reason while complaining that the jury did the same or they are incompetent.

The jury system is not perfect and the jurors are not lawyers ( they are not supposed to be ) and they are lay people by design and definition, but in this case the jury seems to have done an amazing job cutting through all the mountain of data that was presented to them. Especially given the seemingly high complexity of the issues involved.

The jury foreman comes across as a very level headed, mature and impartial person. I fully understand that it is very frustrating if you are in the Anti-Apple camp but after seeing this video and the maturity and thoughtful responses by the foreman, I do not see much ground for Samsung's appeal on any methodology the jury used.

 

[sectime]

"The home-town jury and the sheer mass of accusations aside
As Carey points out though, “It is possible that the Federal Circuit will reverse.
http://www.zdnet.com/apple-v-samsung-the-legal-aftershocks-7000003268/

Just as the judge pointed out to both Apple and Samsung during the trial.
The jury foreman should not play lawyer, he is not very good at it. I'm sure somebody has told him to shut up Telling the world that the jury ignored the rather long instructions is too funny.

 

[avonord]

Chefs do this and yet somehow restaurants still exist.

Yes, and everyone are making the same dishes.

 

[gnasher729]

Actually, he was found *liable* in civil court.

(Which, from a conceptual stand-point baffles me. I've just been *cleared* of committing murder, in part because the some of the prosecution's evidence was planted, and other evidence which the prosecution calls critical and definitive simply doesn't fit, and now I'm being told that I'm responsible for the wrongful death of the person who I was just cleared of murdering. Yes, I'm aware that it's two different standards of proof, but still. I just had a criminal court say, nope this guy is innocent.)

Exactly, there are two different standards of proof. Let's say our cars collide. In a criminal case, there is quite possibly not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was my fault, and not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was your fault. In a civil case, one of us must be liable. The judge must decide for one side or for the other side.

 

[kdarling]

Yet we have average joes deciding the fate of a human being in a murder trial.

Right, and the trade dress part was akin to a murder trial. Witnesses, motive, intent. As I said, a jury can figure that out.

The patents dispute (remember, both sides claimed some) is separate from the murder trial. It's not even a theft trial, because theft is not required. Only validity, infringement and being first count.

The patent part required experience and knowledge, starting with deciding if an invention would be obvious to someone practiced in that particular art. None of the jurors, much less all of them, were remotely qualified to decide such a combination touch and UI issue. Add on the probable need to study source code to see if patents infringe, which the jury definitely did not do.

That's why Judge Posner believes that patent decisions should only be done by experts.

Have to run. More later. Doctor's appt.

 

[gnasher729]

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

I'm sure many people know. I would hope that _most_ people know, but I wouldn't bet too much money on it. (And how many is "most"? 51%? Quite possible. 99%? Don't think so. Seen on TV: Question: "How much is 20% of 100?" Answer: "5%". Many people are stupid. ). Anyway, it's not _all_ people.

 

[2bikes]

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.

So what you are saying is, either, Samsung`s lawyers messed up and did not deliver the prior art well enough that the jury did not see it as it is, or the jury was full of people that were blind to see the what prior art was.

But I would like to believe we don`t have enough background how prior art works in this case. For the last 2-3 years I have been working with innovation and patenting those in a different segment that is far far from electronics and prior art can only go so far. It is so hard to cover for every single detail of an idea. And others poke holes at it. Again, my experience is limited like many of us on this forum. I`m pretty sure those patent lawyers on each side have been there for quiet some time to do the job to present prior art. Apparently Apple`s lawyers did a better job.

 

[bsolar]

the decision may be unpalatable but trashing the jury after watching the video means you are letting emotion overtake reason while complaining that the jury did the same or they are incompetent.

The problem is not the video, but what the foreman and other jurors declared to the press before. The video is basically damage control after almost all technical news sources were highlighting the sentence's weak points in light of what the jurors declared.

The jury system is not perfect and the jurors are not lawyers ( they are not supposed to be ) and they are lay people by design and definition, but in this case the jury seems to have done an amazing job cutting through all the mountain of data that was presented to them. Especially given the seemingly high complexity of the issues involved.

They did a very poor job.

First of all, almost all experts in the field already commented negatively about the short time they took to decide. They are lay people, which means they should have taken all the due time to do a proper evaluation of all the details. Instead, to "cut thorugh all the mountain of data" they resorted to cutting corners, as the foreman itself explained before this video. You cannot ignore stuff because you feel "bogged down".

Basically they cut the most important task they had: evaluate Apple's patents in light of the provided prior art. It's simple: Apple's patents are the foundation of the whole issue and it was the jury's duty to evaluate the prior art and decide whether the patents are valid before even considering any other issue. This is because if the patents are not valid, Samsung cannot infringe them and if Samsung cannot infringe them there are no damages... if the patents are found valid, then this makes Apple's patents much stronger and Samsung basically doomed.

I'm sure the foreman now claims that they evaluated everything in detail, but this is not what was declared before this video happened.

The jury foreman comes across as a very level headed, mature and impartial person. I fully understand that it is very frustrating if you are in the Anti-Apple camp but after seeing this video and the maturity and thoughtful responses by the foreman, I do not see much ground for Samsung's appeal on any methodology the jury used.

You can be level-headed, mature and impartial as you want but this doesn't mean you never mess up. The foreman's declarations before this video are pretty damning about the way they messed up the sentence deciding to depart from the instructions they received.

And this is frustrating no matter the camp you are in, because it makes the sentence less credible. It would have been much better to take more time, iron out all the details, evaluate the prior art and in case declare the patents still valid, make sure that you are evaluating damages without punitive intent in mind... and Samsung would have much less convincing arguments for the appeal than they have now.

Without the prior art evaluation the sentence is basically worthless.

 

[KnightWRX]

This is not true in the case of the iPad and iPhone. As you would probably know, the problem of designing a viable touch screen tablet has been an egg nobody had been able to crack until the iPhone/iPad.

The problem was not the design patents themselves either. The problem was the software running on it. iPad brought a stripped down, very controlled and no-configuration OS to the masses on a tablet. This is what made it take off. It's not "tap to zoom" or "bounce back" or the famous rectangle with rounded corners.

D'889 was defeated anyhow, I don't know why you bring in touch screen tablets. The Galaxy Tab was found non-infringing of the design patents.

So yes, it holds very true. For what utility patents were aimed at the Samsung phones/tablets, sit down a bunch of programmers and tell them you need to "Zoom in to read the text on this touch screen", and probably a bunch will come up with the same solution.

You're trying to say this isn't so based on "tablets didn't sell before the iPad" without even knowing why they didn't. A particular detail as covered by the patents Apple use is not it.

----------

So what you are saying is, either, Samsung`s lawyers messed up and did not deliver the prior art well enough that the jury did not see it as it is, or the jury was full of people that were blind to see the what prior art was.

In the case of the prior art they were allowed to show, the Fiddler tablet concept, the result was a non-infringement verdict for D'889 for the Galaxy Tab.

The problem is Judge Grewal refused the other prior art evidence Samsung had for phones so they didn't even get to show it to the jury. They asked Koh 4 times to turn that verdict around and allow the evidence and she refused each time, which led to the "media leak" during the summer and the Quinn deposition about "fairness" in the trial.

 

[kdarling]

This is not true in the case of the iPad and iPhone. As you would probably know, the problem of designing a viable touch screen tablet has been an egg nobody had been able to crack until the iPhone/iPad.

Actually, it was done a few times over the years, but nobody paid attention because 1) the technology or price wasn't quite ripe, 2) it wasn't let out of R&D, and/or 3) it wasn't done by someone with high publicity.

One of the best examples I can think of offhand, was the Norwegian Freepad back in 2000. Like the later iPad, its UI was created specifically to be touch friendly, and designed as they put it, so that it would be "so easy to use, that your grandmother can use it," Sound familiar? Its specs read just like an iPad would've back then... including having a dedicated app store.



Similar touch friendliness was tried with phones. One example is the 2003 MyOrigo touch phone with swipe between menu pages and integrated 3D orientation sensor:



Ditto for other multi-touch, pinch zoom, etc devices that came before the iPhone: most people never knew about them, but it doesn't meant they didn't exist. Lots of technology isn't known by the mass consumer until they can buy it.

 

[Nand]

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.
iPhone and TouchFLO interactive interface systems are not new at all.

In 2003, MyOrigo, a Finnish company, presented a new mobile phone prototype with an innovative user interface called “Touch&Feel”. “MyDevice”, as they named this mobile phone, used “Intent”, a multimedia software platform developed by Tao Group.

MyDevice main characteristics were:

Tri-band phone with GPRS
Screen with 176×320 pixels
QWERTY keyboard
VGA camera
MP3 player
Personal Information Management Applications
But the really innovations of the MyOrigo phone were,

Movement Control
The user, moving his hand, could incline, scroll and resize the screen.

MyBook user interface
The interface allowed the user to use the device in the same way as a book, turning the screens as pages touching screen corners.

Mirroring
Inclining to the left or right MyDevice, the screen scrolled in the same way.

Johan Granhol, MyOrigo Sales & Marketing Vice president, announced the presentation day that several European carriers were interested in his technology (Telefonica Moviles in Spain was one of them), and he would be pleased to make a big announcement next months. But finally, and after 4 years, nobody knows anything more about this precocious device…

 

[bigredape]

 

[mgsarch]

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

Brilliant.

It is remarkable.

 

[Judas1]

Joseph Swan.

Dude, he developed an incandescent lightbulb. Great, but many things Edison did was new. Edison developed an incandescent lightbulb thats long lasting using tungsten as the filament. Tungsten was relative unknown then. Edison used the screw design for the electrodes which makes lightbulbs easy to install. Granted, Swan did know to eliminate oxidation by using a vacuum bulb. But he was one scientist who was ahead of his time. In a test of obviousness, I'm willing to bet not even 1 out of a 100 people would think to evacuate air from the bulb, or even how to do it in practice. The average designer can look at Apple's interface implementation like bounce, pinch to zoom, or slide to unlock, and think so what.

 

[subsonix]

One of the best examples I can think of offhand, was the Norwegian Freepad back in 2000. Like the later iPad, its UI was created specifically to be touch friendly, and designed as they put it, so that it would be "so easy to use, that your grandmother can use it," Sound familiar? Its specs read just like an iPad would've back then... including having a dedicated app store.

An image of a product does not equate a solved user interface problem. If it did it well I'm sure it was a huge success on the market right.

 

[Kludge420]

Granted, Swan did know to eliminate oxidation by using a vacuum bulb. But he was one scientist who was ahead of his time. In a test of obviousness, I'm willing to bet not even 1 out of a 100 people would think to evacuate air from the bulb, or even how to do it in practice. The average designer can look at Apple's interface implementation like bounce, pinch to zoom, or slide to unlock, and think so what.

So it's OK to steal an idea if it's not obvious but it's not OK to use an obvious idea that already existed before Apple illegally patented it?