Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

Snowy_River said:
Actually, the kind of specialized court your talking about does exist. It's part of the patent approval process.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update - and to all the people who mentioned this.

I don't know why they didn't just go straight to this court and miss out the jury trial. That judgement would have far more weight and as you say these guys are experts so there would be no room for arguments afterwards about jury bias and all that.

This is basically what happened in the UK. We had a specialist judge with no jury who was able to look at all the evidence professionally and make a decision.

Ok people will still complain whatever the verdict but I would be far more willing to accept a verdict from a panel of patent experts.
 
Shaun said:
According to comments made by one of the jurors they made their mind up after the first day of the trial without waiting to hear all the evidence. That is not a considered judicial process.

Jurors make their mind up before the trial - is that what you want?

Is that justice?

If you were on trial for murder would you be happy with a jury that took one look at you and decided you were obviously guilty?

If Samsung didn't have grounds for appeal before they sure do now so I wouldn't celebrate too soon if I were you. The next lot might actually look at the evidence before making up their mind.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. While i think it's quite obvious they infringed, their best bet is an appeal win on a technicality like this.

I'm sure Samsung lawyers are on it.
 
Oh. My. God...

Shaun said:
According to comments made by one of the jurors they made their mind up after the first day of the trial without waiting to hear all the evidence. That is not a considered judicial process.

Jurors make their mind up before the trial - is that what you want?

Is that justice?

If you were on trial for murder would you be happy with a jury that took one look at you and decided you were obviously guilty?

If Samsung didn't have grounds for appeal before they sure do now so I wouldn't celebrate too soon if I were you. The next lot might actually look at the evidence before making up their mind.
Click to expand...

The juror said they had made up their mind that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patents on the first day of deliberations.

Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict (appleinsider.com)

Ilagan told CNET the jury was convinced of Samsung's guilt after only one day of deliberations, noting that the seemingly fast verdict was carefully decided after weighing evidence presented by both parties. Altogether, the group had to decide on over 700 questions related to patents and patent rights.
Click to expand...

But feel free to keep making stuff up. I'm sure it bolsters your credibility (/sarcasm).
 
John.B said:
Oh. My. God...



The juror said they had made up their mind that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patents on the first day of deliberations.

But feel free to keep making stuff up. I'm sure it bolsters your credibility (/sarcasm).
Click to expand...

Ok see i should have read it before commenting also. That makes it a little different lol
 
zorinlynx said:
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.
Click to expand...

spazzcat said:
I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...
Click to expand...

Spazzcat I agree with you. People who are arguing this will stifle innovation are really saying "this will stifle copying and hurt my ability to buy an iPhone from someone other than Apple.

This should help innovation, now those who wish to compete must do it on there own terms, with their own ideas, Hence many different ideas and not just iPhones, and iPhone clones.

Apple has every right to protect their innovations. It would only be monopolistic if they were able to totally shut down all other cell phone makers from making a cell phone. We all know that is not what this is about. It is simply about copying.

Think back to school, if you got caught copying your neighbors test, you failed. Samsung got caught copying Apple it is that simple.
 
Way to go Apple!!

Microsoft steals Apples user interface and calls it "windows", Palm gets its start from Apples Newton, Apple does away with floppy drives and serial ports and the world gasps but follows, Apple invents iPod,iPad, iPhone etc and world follows with their own copies! Enough is enough, Apple is tired of other companies stealing THEIR ideas!! And now a jury agrees, GOOD FOR YOU APPLE! If you want the best buy APPLE, if you want a second rate copy buy Samsung!
 
linkgx1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they stole Coka cola's recipe they would.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Would never work. Each country has its own laws and to expect it to be international, with a multinational panel of judges, each with knowledge of the law of both host countries is just not feasible in any sense of the word.

Apparently you did not have a problem with the decisions of courts in other countries that sided with Samsung. Only when the American court system mostly ruled with on Apples side did this seem to matter.
Click to expand...

There already is an international organisation called WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) based in Switzerland. Why not just cede all patent disputes amongst multi-national companies to one international court. They could have expert judges from around the world. They do it with the international criminal court and that works well.

I have a problem with biased verdicts. I think the US jury was clearly biased just like the South Korean court was almost certainly biased when they ruled the opposite way. I have my own view based on my own experience (I have an iPhone and a Galaxy S2) but we need a standard procedure for this. It doesn't make any sense to me to have a court case in every country around the world with a different decision in each country. How crazy is that.

I know many Americans do not have an international outlook and think anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy but really is this the best system? One court case in one international court with a panel of expert judges from around the world seems a logical answer to me.
 
While Despite hating APples business practice of Litigate the world to force monopolistic competition, I do think there might be some patents Sasmung has copied.

However,
This verdict isn't great. there are issues and wholes.

I dont normally like Groklaw, but they do make some valid points.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1

For example. How does a jury award compensation for a device they ruled didn't infringe? How can you "send a message" to a company not to copy, if you don't have a clear outline on the patents that they did copy. Eespecially when according to the court documents, many such patents were not deemed as infringed.

I don't think the jury was in the right here and I believe that a lot of the value they applied had a lot more to do with "home town pride".

This will go to appeals and I believe you'll see that the value Apple wins will be significantly less (though I still think they'll win some patents, like "bounce back" and perhaps "slide to unlock". But they're going to lose many of the patents they're suiing on, such as "transparency over a solid background"
 
John.B said:
Oh. My. God...

The juror said they had made up their mind that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patents on the first day of deliberations.

Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict (appleinsider.com)

But feel free to keep making stuff up. I'm sure it bolsters your credibility (/sarcasm).
Click to expand...

What's the difference. You're supposed to make your mind up at the end of the deliberations not after the first day. As a juror you're supposed to review all the evidence before making a decision. They cannot possibly have reviewed all the evidence after just one day. It still points to a biased jury who had made made their minds up before the court case even started.
 
John.B said:
It looked to me like the jury went through everything thoughtfully and deliberately. 1) Infringing. 2) Willful infringement. 3) Penalties. Would you have been upset if they had come back with a "not infringing" verdict in that same time frame?
Click to expand...

The foreman's comments about "not needing instructions", damages awarded on non-infringing devices, D'677 device list infringements vs non-infringements (Ace does not infringe while Epic 4G does ? Have you looked at both and the D'677 patent ? If anything, it should be the opposite, Ace infringes, Epic 4G does not).

Yes, if they had come back with a non-infringement verdict in the same time frame and with the same it seems contempt for evidence and instructions, I would criticize that verdict too. This is about justice, not about picking sides.
 
Shaun said:
There already is an international organisation called WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) based in Switzerland. Why not just cede all patent disputes amongst multi-national companies to one international court. They could have expert judges from around the world. They do it with the international criminal court and that works well.
Click to expand...

Because, unlike Europeans, Americans don't cede their rights to anyone, let alone some Swiss-based "international" organization? Did we cover the US Constitution earlier?
 
trunten said:
If they stole Coka cola's recipe they would.
Click to expand...

Actually, Coca Cola's recipe is a trade secret, so if it gets stolen, Coca cola can't really sue the "copier", only the people responsible for the information leak if those people were under contract not to disclose it (usually known as NDAs, Non Disclosure Agreements).
 
KnightWRX said:
The foreman's comments about "not needing instructions", damages awarded on non-infringing devices, D'677 device list infringements vs non-infringements (Ace does not infringe while Epic 4G does ? Have you looked at both and the D'677 patent ? If anything, it should be the opposite, Ace infringes, Epic 4G does not).

Yes, if they had come back with a non-infringement verdict in the same time frame and with the same it seems contempt for evidence and instructions, I would criticize that verdict too. This is about justice, not about picking sides.
Click to expand...

when i started reading through it all (and i didnt finish cause there's a LOT of questions on the form and it was taking me significantly longer than an nitial cursory look to decide), it looked to me like the Jury was basically just throwing in a bunch of random "infringed" verdicts onto random devices, and enough of the just to award such a result.

the math never worked up at first, and the awards to devices that are listed as "non infringing" are a big BIG indicator that the Jury did not do their due process and diligence.

as I said before, There are patents I believe that should be upheld, but the majority of them shouldn't. The awards should be based on the exact patents that have been infringed on, and a specific dollar ammount per infringing.

I think the Jury itself, was either influenced by Apple's "home field" advantage, Or they knew damn well that they'd be appealed and a different court would have to make the decision, so they just hammered through it as fast as they could so they could just go home.


Either way, The jury might have just handed Samsung their ticket to appeals court by their inconsistencies
 
NakedPaulToast said:
I can't help but wonder if those defending this outcome and the patent system are as quick to defend Lodsys and its software patent infringement claims.
Click to expand...

While a few utility patents were about software (tap to zoom and bounce back), the biggest part of this case was about trade dress and design patents. Discussing the validity of software patents as a whole is quite a topic on its own and it just isn't really applicable here.
 
superdave5122 said:
Microsoft steals Apples user interface and calls it "windows", Palm gets its start from Apples Newton, Apple does away with floppy drives and serial ports and the world gasps but follows, Apple invents iPod,iPad, iPhone etc and world follows with their own copies! Enough is enough, Apple is tired of other companies stealing THEIR ideas!! And now a jury agrees, GOOD FOR YOU APPLE! If you want the best buy APPLE, if you want a second rate copy buy Samsung!
Click to expand...

By second rate products like the Galaxy S 3? A phone consistently rated better than any iteration of the iPhone? ;)

Or do you mean like a graphical computer interface, a mouse, WYSIWYG text editors, laser printers, etc. that Apple, MS, and others stole from Xerox?

Apple didn't invent the GUI or most of the other stuff you listed. Compaq released the first hard drive based digital audio player. Apple tends to improve such devices...but, no, they didn't invent them. Get your facts straight.

If anything, it was the click wheel that separated the iPod from everything else. Which coincidentally...Apple didn't invent that either and was subsequently sued for patent infringement. Never mind that apple has been sued numerous times over the iPhone and some of it's technology.

So my point is, a lot of this stuff that you THINK apple invented...they didn't.
 
Last edited:
John.B said:
Because, unlike Europeans, Americans don't cede their rights to anyone, let alone some Swiss-based "international" organization? Did we cover the US Constitution earlier?
Click to expand...

Americans conceded their rights just as much as any other countries, or do you not know about things like the Patriot Act, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act or the DHS' "100 miles constitution free zone" ?

I live in what is called a "socialist" society, and we have as the same charters you americans have. Heck, in Canada, we even have two of them. :rolleyes:

Europeens do not defer any more rights to "government" than Americans or Canadians or any other democratic society does, that's just plain ignorance of the world outside the US, and really a big blind opinion on US regulations in general. But this isn't PRSI, so please refrain from criticizing societies you obviously have no clues about especially if you don't even know about your own internal issues.
 
Gnomepatrol said:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Looks like Samsung is going to have an easy time appealing since the jurors contradicted findings repeatedly in their decision lol.
Click to expand...

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Groklaw's track record in this litigation is not spotless, not even near it. Many of PJ's predictions haven't held, quite the opposite.

I blame on their lack of in depth coverage, like they gave Novell v SCO or Oracle v Google, where PJ had insight for months to build her projections and opinions. They only reported summarily on Apple v. Samsung so she might not have read through all the documents and decisions as profoundly as in the other cases she's covered.

Though for what its worth, her blog is a much better source of neutral information (though tainted a bit by her own anti-corporative opinions) than all the FOSSpatents and The Verge crap posted here.
 
Shaun said:
Honestly I couldn't care less about the "bounce back" feature. I never even noticed it until you mentioned it.
Click to expand...

There you have it. You don't care and most consumers don't. But Apple does care. And you would care if someone was stealing your ideas/designs and profiting from them.
 
KnightWRX said:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Groklaw's track record in this litigation is not spotless, not even near it. Many of PJ's predictions haven't held, quite the opposite.

I blame on their lack of in depth coverage, like they gave Novell v SCO or Oracle v Google, where PJ had insight for months to build her projections and opinions. They only reported summarily on Apple v. Samsung so she might not have read through all the documents and decisions as profoundly as in the other cases she's covered.

Though for what its worth, her blog is a much better source of neutral information (though tainted a bit by her own anti-corporative opinions) than all the FOSSpatents and The Verge crap posted here.
Click to expand...

groklaw is driven by free/opensource software advocates; hardly neutral, and neither are you, I or anyone else commenting on this forum. We pick the information that fits our worldview.

But don't let me stand in the way of some good old American Monday morning quarterbacking.
 
BvizioN said:
There you have it. You don't care and most consumers don't. But Apple does care. And you would care if someone was stealing your ideas/designs and profiting from them.
Click to expand...

This statement is flawed, because you are claiming Samsung are profiting from the infringements? It is not, the first gen Galaxy was the only thing that really looked like an iPhone and it's no longer on sale, the Touchwiz is also updated now.
No one brought a Galaxy due to the way it looked, they brought it because it was the best Android handset on the market at the time, people would still have brought a Galaxy with no bounce back feature or a grid icon layout with square icons with round corners!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back