Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,119
10,460






Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.

Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.

In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.

In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.
Article Link: Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict
 

linkgx1

macrumors 68000
Oct 12, 2011
1,639
243
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
 

spacehog371

macrumors regular
Dec 13, 2003
238
0
This well thought out explanation is going to frustrate critics who want to blame an ignorant jury for what happened.
 

Mavrack

macrumors member
Jun 2, 2011
90
7
I think they made the right decision. Samsung clearly copied and infringed on Apple's patents, Apple told them to stop many times, offered to licence it to them but Samsung still refused to cooperate so Apple sued them. Serves them right.
 

zorinlynx

macrumors 603
May 31, 2007
6,105
8,823
Florida, USA
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68030
Jun 29, 2007
2,696
1,514
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...
 

Robincognito

macrumors newbie
Feb 5, 2011
9
0
Ultimately, I think this is bad for consumers. Apple weren't patenting inventions. They were patenting generic design features. The whole patent system needs overhauling.

Edit: Fortunately, it's not as though Samsung can't afford it.
 

iSee

macrumors 68040
Oct 25, 2004
3,525
253
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
Uh, the jury needs to consider all the evidence presented at trial. It's a little strange that you feel you can redefine the rules of evidence used at trial in an internet forum.
 

Michael Scrip

macrumors 603
Mar 4, 2011
5,727
5,169
NC
Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
That's only if Coca-Cola had a patent on lemon-lime soda. I don't think they do.

However... Apple has tons of patents and trade-dress examples.

Who knew you could patent all that stuff? Apple did... and now they are defending them.

You can't blame Apple for using the broken patent system...
 

cvaldes

macrumors 68040
Dec 14, 2006
3,237
0
somewhere else
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
What this jury verdict says is that Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property and that Samsung is guilty of lifting Apple's innovation despite the fact that Apple had offered Samsung several times to license their property.

I will also point out that Samsung is the worldwide leader in unit marketshare of smartphones.

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/2...-market-slides-as-samsung-continues-to-surge/

Samsung dominates the market by selling lots of devices that -- according to this jury -- are crammed full of Apple intellectual property. Apple has a long way to go to reach what would be a monopoly.

You should understand that the jury members are interpreting US patent law and aren't employees of Apple Inc. nor Samsung. As a matter of fact, any Apple or Samsung employees would have been weeded out during the jury selection process.

The jury is not telling anyone to stop innovating. They are telling Samsung to do their own innovation and not to steal stuff from Apple and saying it is theirs. Due to the lack of congressional foresight, current patent law has no actionable provision for "finders keepers, losers weepers" or "share your toys with the other kids in the sandbox."

Now, if you think the US patent system is broken, that's an entirely different (and arguably valid) discussion, however the jury is instructed to base their verdict on existing and active law.

These laws weren't written to favor one specific company (like Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Wonderbra, whoever).

You have understood nothing about this entire legal action.
 
Last edited:

Iconoclysm

macrumors 68020
May 13, 2010
2,419
1,673
Washington, DC
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
And they would definitely sue Pepsi if they copied.

----------

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
Samsung is the one that needs to learn to play well with others - this has been going on for years and years with them.
 

Foxykhat

macrumors member
Nov 12, 2010
83
0
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
I guess people should just be allowed to rip you off, in order to out sell you and you not do anything about it.

Patents are put in place for a reason. If someone else want to use them then they must obtain the proper rights.

Foxy
 

Dorje Sylas

macrumors 6502
Jun 8, 2011
499
330
Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
I think one of the points that came out in this case was that Apple did try to play nice (as nice as any company gets), but Samsung blew them off. If Samsung hadn't been so quick to write Apples offers off they wouldn't be out a billion dollars and looking a possible ban on a number of their products.
 

Iconoclysm

macrumors 68020
May 13, 2010
2,419
1,673
Washington, DC
That's only if Coca-Cola had a patent on lemon-lime soda. I don't think they do.

However... Apple has tons of patents and trade-dress examples.

Who knew you could patent all that stuff? Apple did... and now they are defending them.

You can't blame Apple for using the broken patent system...
Who knew? Everyone knows. And everyone would enforce it when it needs to. The patent system may be "broken" but it found a guilty party guilty in this trial and that's really all that matters right now.
 

bazinga!!

macrumors regular
Apr 25, 2012
100
2
Belgium
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
Steve Jobs was already suing Samsung many years before this, so saying that Apple is turning into a bigger control freak is wrong. It is right to say that Samsung is turning into a bigger and bigger copycat as time goes on, as they can't seem to find a way to undermine the success of the iPhone.

And the purpose of patents is to give a temporary monopoly! If it wasn't for patent law, companies would innovate too little, because it would be too easy to copy each others inventions.
 

cmChimera

macrumors 68040
Feb 12, 2010
3,963
2,825
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
Yes it is. Some of the case was trade dress. If it looks like they deliberately made a product mimicking someone else's, then it is infringement.


To everyone complaining about a broken patent system, what exactly is broken? And are you sure you're not confusing trade dress claims with patent claims? I would never make the case that ANY section of law such as patents, copyrights, criminal, etc. are perfect, but it seems so ridiculous to me that there are a bunch of people acting like they somehow are now patent law experts claiming the system is broken. It's not.
 

makingdots

macrumors 6502
Aug 14, 2008
291
176
Bratty little whinny kids in 3, 2, 1..

They are like the ones in school that can't copy the smart kid in class and get away with it. Bunch of punks supporting the belief that taking a free ride off of someone else's work is the way to go.
 
Last edited:

dotme

macrumors 6502a
Oct 18, 2011
945
93
Iowa
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
I think they do play well with companies who license their technologies.

Problem is, Samsung didn't do that. They could have - but chose not to. It's not unlike Internet radio. Pay the royalties, or deal with the penalties.

:)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.