Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[GadgetDon]

When kdarling posted the professions and qualifications of some of the jurors i knew they were a smart bunch. Yet, we've still got ppl saying they rushed through and made the wrong decision.

Actually, I'd have been happier if they spent longer, and particularly if the verdict didn't come in just before Friday. I get their statement about how the decision of "they willfully infringed" was something they'd all come to the same conclusion during presentation of evidence and so it was just going through the devices and which infringed, but that was a lot of things to evaluate in three days and there wouldn't have been a lot of time for "wait, what if..." thoughts.

 

[Taz Mangus]

I'm sure some here won't read this because it doesn't mesh with their assumption that the jurors are incompetent and that's why apple won.

When kdarling posted the professions and qualifications of some of the jurors i knew they were a smart bunch. Yet, we've still got ppl saying they rushed through and made the wrong decision.

Ironic isn't it?

 

[isoft7]

The jurors admit they penalized Samsung through a desire to "punish".

AFTER being explicitly instructed that was NOT to be their job. Their role is to replace lost revenue, not provide Apple with emotional compensation.

Translation = the findings of the jury were flawed and should be overturned.

 

[Mark Booth]

Great interview with the Jury foremen on Bloomberg...
Seems like a reasonable man to me.


http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-jury-foreman-here-s-how-we-reached-a-verdict-RqtqHC25QbOBFg7xrWa5Wg.html

Wow, extremely interesting that NONE of the jurors owned an iPhone! The Jury foreman said he used PCs, not Macs.

Mark

----------

The jurors admit they penalized Samsung through a desire to "punish".

AFTER being explicitly instructed that was NOT to be their job. Their role is to replace lost revenue, not provide Apple with emotional compensation.

Translation = the findings of the jury were flawed and should be overturned.

Apple was asking for 35% royalty. Samsung countered that it should only be 12%.

The jury used 14%, MUCH closer to the what Samsung claimed. So, how can you argue that the jury went to far?

Regardless, I predict Judge Koh will reduce the award to about $500 million and then triple the damages to $1.5 billion. That should make you happy.

Mark

 

[isoft7]

Wow, extremely interesting that NONE of the jurors owned an iPhone! The Jury foreman said he used PCs, not Macs.

Mark

----------



Apple was asking for 35% royalty. Samsung countered that it should only be 12%.

The jury used 14%, MUCH closer to the what Samsung claimed. So, how can you argue that the jury went to far?

Regardless, I predict Judge Koh will reduce the award to about $500 million and then triple the damages to $1.5 billion. That should make you happy.

Mark

The only thing that would make me happy would be to have this entire thing tossed out, and later decided by patent lawyers who actually UNDERSTAND the nuances of shapes, interfaces, interactions and designs.

Not a bunch of ignorant middle ages housewives who think Apple invented cellular technology because the only phone they've ever heard of is the "iPhone."

Same sort that calls all copy machines a Xerox, even if it says Canon right on the front panel.

 

[GadgetDon]

The only thing that would make me happy would be to have this entire thing tossed out, and later decided by patent lawyers who actually UNDERSTAND the nuances of shapes, interfaces, interactions and designs.

Not a bunch of ignorant middle ages housewives who think Apple invented cellular technology because the only phone they've ever heard of is the "iPhone."

Same sort that calls all copy machines a Xerox, even if it says Canon right on the front panel.

You DID see the reports of the makeup of the jury, right? No, not all patent lawyers (lawyers of any stripe rarely are accepted on juries) but it was a remarkably well-educated and tech-saavy group.

If this was an "ignorant" decision, well, then Samsung will just breeze through the appeal process for a complete reversal. Oh, but what if most of the case is left intact? I guess it'll be ignorant middle aged judges who made it, hunh?

 

[tigres]

The only thing that would make me happy would be to have this entire thing tossed out, and later decided by patent lawyers who actually UNDERSTAND the nuances of shapes, interfaces, interactions and designs.

Not a bunch of ignorant middle ages housewives who think Apple invented cellular technology because the only phone they've ever heard of is the "iPhone."

Same sort that calls all copy machines a Xerox, even if it says Canon right on the front panel.

Jury foreman did not look ignorant, middle-aged, or a housewife to me; quite the contrary- very knowledgeable in fact.

Oh, and in the US, this is how Jury trials go- they don't call in the experts of the "respected field" of current trial to sit on that jury. This is exactly what you are insinuating by your commentary.

 

[isoft7]

You DID see the reports of the makeup of the jury, right? No, not all patent lawyers (lawyers of any stripe rarely are accepted on juries) but it was a remarkably well-educated and tech-saavy group.

If this was an "ignorant" decision, well, then Samsung will just breeze through the appeal process for a complete reversal. Oh, but what if most of the case is left intact? I guess it'll be ignorant middle aged judges who made it, hunh?

Actually, I disagree with you... the jury does not come across as being very well educated on the subject of cellular phones at all.

Since that is the core of this case, it's certainly important.

Having someone on the jury with a patent does not qualify them as an expert on that subject either.

As for the appeals process, time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a lot of this overturned in different courts.

...or at least, invalidated somehow.

----------

Jury foreman did not look ignorant, middle-aged, or a housewife to me; quite the contrary- very knowledgeable in fact.

Oh, and in the US, this is how Jury trials go- they don't call in the experts of the "respected field" of current trial to sit on that jury. This is exactly what you are insinuating by your commentary.

He seems biased, and overly judgemental against Samsung and for specific aspects of the patent process.

No need to "school" me on the process of jury selection, I'm all too aware of how it works. But thank you just the same.

 

[webbuzz]

Actually, I disagree with you... the jury does not come across as being very well educated on the subject of cellular phones at all.

Since that is the core of this case, it's certainly important.

Having someone on the jury with a patent does not qualify them as an expert on that subject either.

As for the appeals process, time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a lot of this overturned in different courts.

...or at least, invalidated somehow.

----------



He seems biased, and overly judgemental against Samsung and for specific aspects of the patent process.

No need to "school" me on the process of jury selection, I'm all too aware of how it works. But thank you just the same.

First you say this:

Actually, I disagree with you... the jury does not come across as being very well educated on the subject of cellular phones at all.

Since that is the core of this case, it's certainly important.

Then you say this:

Having someone on the jury with a patent does not qualify them as an expert on that subject either.

Seems a bit contradictory to me.

 

[GadgetDon]

Actually, I disagree with you... the jury does not come across as being very well educated on the subject of cellular phones at all.

Since that is the core of this case, it's certainly important.

Having someone on the jury with a patent does not qualify them as an expert on that subject either.

As for the appeals process, time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a lot of this overturned in different courts.

...or at least, invalidated somehow.

The purpose of the jury is to evaluate te evidence put forth by the lawyers. They are not to be cops, they are not to be lawyers, they are not to be judges. They are to reach a verdict based on he evidence provided in the trial based on the law as the judge explained it.

Sometimes there are stupid jurors who can't look at evidence and make a judgement, or go off the rails pushing their wn agenda. The jury selection didn't preclude that as impossible but did make it unlikely.

You want a jury filled with experts who will decide what you think is right, which would do away with any purpose for a trial.

 

[Mark Booth]

The only thing that would make me happy would be to have this entire thing tossed out, and later decided by patent lawyers who actually UNDERSTAND the nuances of shapes, interfaces, interactions and designs.

Not a bunch of ignorant middle ages housewives who think Apple invented cellular technology because the only phone they've ever heard of is the "iPhone."

Same sort that calls all copy machines a Xerox, even if it says Canon right on the front panel.

I offer the hysterical suggestion that you weren't paying much attention during the trial. Except, perhaps, the "sound bites" you read on the web.

And, BTW, the whole point of the American justice system is that lawyers are NOT supposed to be the ones deciding the case.

Mark

 

[Prime Mover]

The jurors admit they penalized Samsung through a desire to "punish".

AFTER being explicitly instructed that was NOT to be their job. Their role is to replace lost revenue, not provide Apple with emotional compensation.

There is a distinct difference between "offering the victim emotional compensation" and "punishing the guilty", and there are fundamental reasons behind doing either.

"Emotional Compensation" is usually reserved for individuals if their lives are negatively effected by a crime. In this case, as a company, Apple has no emotional well-being, so it's hard to justify any claims that they need emotional compensation.

However, creating an adequate punishment for a guilty party is the very foundation of corporate law. The main focus of ANY trial is to try and ensure that a crime is not committed again. In a criminal trial, theoretically, you're trying to send the guilty party to a correctional institution (unfortunately, our prisons tend to do more harm than good, but that's a different matter altogether). For corporations, that means hitting them with enough of a fine that they take the whole issue seriously. The reason some corporate law suits sound so outrageous is that many times you can't possibly get results unless you hit a giant corporation with a hell of a huge fine.

The most disgustingly thrown-around case is that of the woman who sued McDonald's for being served a boiling hot cup of coffee. Most people read the headline, make immediate assumption, and deem the whole process corrupt. What they don't take into account is that the $1 million the plaintiff received wasn't because she DESERVED $1 million, it was because the corporation deserved to be punished $1 million in order to force them into compliance with the law. Where does that money go? If you retooled the system so that it went to the court system, then THAT would be corrupt... a non-profit third-party? Who's to say who gets what? The money has to go somewhere, so it might as well go to the one involved party that isn't part of the actual system: the plaintiff. That's why individuals often get enormous sums of money from law suits.

Why am I pulling up an individual's law suit as a way of describing Apple vs Samsung? Because the same concepts apply: Apple may not in-fact deserve $1 billion (although, in this case, they very well might, due to loss of sale), but Samsung sure-as-hell needs to be penalized a large amount of money in order to try and get them to not repeat their actions in the future.

 

[lazard]

There is a distinct difference between "offering the victim emotional compensation" and "punishing the guilty", and there are fundamental reasons behind doing either.

"Emotional Compensation" is usually reserved for individuals if their lives are negatively effected by a crime. In this case, as a company, Apple has no emotional well-being, so it's hard to justify any claims that they need emotional compensation.

However, creating an adequate punishment for a guilty party is the very foundation of corporate law. The main focus of ANY trial is to try and ensure that a crime is not committed again. In a criminal trial, theoretically, you're trying to send the guilty party to a correctional institution (unfortunately, our prisons tend to do more harm than good, but that's a different matter altogether). For corporations, that means hitting them with enough of a fine that they take the whole issue seriously. The reason some corporate law suits sound so outrageous is that many times you can't possibly get results unless you hit a giant corporation with a hell of a huge fine.

The most disgustingly thrown-around case is that of the woman who sued McDonald's for being served a boiling hot cup of coffee. Most people read the headline, make immediate assumption, and deem the whole process corrupt. What they don't take into account is that the $1 million the plaintiff received wasn't because she DESERVED $1 million, it was because the corporation deserved to be punished $1 million in order to force them into compliance with the law. Where does that money go? If you retooled the system so that it went to the court system, then THAT would be corrupt... a non-profit third-party? Who's to say who gets what? The money has to go somewhere, so it might as well go to the one involved party that isn't part of the actual system: the plaintiff. That's why individuals often get enormous sums of money from law suits.

Why am I pulling up an individual's law suit as a way of describing Apple vs Samsung? Because the same concepts apply: Apple may not in-fact deserve $1 billion (although, in this case, they very well might, due to loss of sale), but Samsung sure-as-hell needs to be penalized a large amount of money in order to try and get them to not repeat their actions in the future.

TL;DR. Awarding Apple $1B to punish Samsung goes against the instructions given to the jury.

 

[GadgetDon]

TL;DR. Awarding Apple $1B to punish Samsung goes against the instructions given to the jury.

You do know that their "punishment" was to charge Samsung 14% of revenue instead of Samsung's recommended 13%. So they came down on damages far below the amount Apple said would be correct, and within spitting distance of Samsung's numbers.

 

[linkgx1]

There is a distinct difference between "offering the victim emotional compensation" and "punishing the guilty", and there are fundamental reasons behind doing either.

"Emotional Compensation" is usually reserved for individuals if their lives are negatively effected by a crime. In this case, as a company, Apple has no emotional well-being, so it's hard to justify any claims that they need emotional compensation.

However, creating an adequate punishment for a guilty party is the very foundation of corporate law. The main focus of ANY trial is to try and ensure that a crime is not committed again. In a criminal trial, theoretically, you're trying to send the guilty party to a correctional institution (unfortunately, our prisons tend to do more harm than good, but that's a different matter altogether). For corporations, that means hitting them with enough of a fine that they take the whole issue seriously. The reason some corporate law suits sound so outrageous is that many times you can't possibly get results unless you hit a giant corporation with a hell of a huge fine.

The most disgustingly thrown-around case is that of the woman who sued McDonald's for being served a boiling hot cup of coffee. Most people read the headline, make immediate assumption, and deem the whole process corrupt. What they don't take into account is that the $1 million the plaintiff received wasn't because she DESERVED $1 million, it was because the corporation deserved to be punished $1 million in order to force them into compliance with the law. Where does that money go? If you retooled the system so that it went to the court system, then THAT would be corrupt... a non-profit third-party? Who's to say who gets what? The money has to go somewhere, so it might as well go to the one involved party that isn't part of the actual system: the plaintiff. That's why individuals often get enormous sums of money from law suits.

Why am I pulling up an individual's law suit as a way of describing Apple vs Samsung? Because the same concepts apply: Apple may not in-fact deserve $1 billion (although, in this case, they very well might, due to loss of sale), but Samsung sure-as-hell needs to be penalized a large amount of money in order to try and get them to not repeat their actions in the future.

That's assuming Samsung is wrong at the end (appeals and all).

But....

If Apple turns out wrong and the decision is reversed and Apple pays the fees..

Then what punishment is in favor for Apple?

In fact, how can we be clear it's a 'message'? If Apple does the same thing and infringes on patents in the future, are they subject to the same level of 'punishment'?

 

[GadgetDon]

That's assuming Samsung is wrong at the end (appeals and all).

But....

If Apple turns out wrong and the decision is reversed and Apple pays the fees..

Then what punishment is in favor for Apple?

In fact, how can we be clear it's a 'message'? If Apple does the same thing and infringes on patents in the future, are they subject to the same level of 'punishment'?

I suspect that, for future lawsuits, should they lose they only get charged 1% more than their stated appropriate damages - they'll be pretty happy.

 

[linkgx1]

I suspect that, for future lawsuits, should they lose they only get charged 1% more than their stated appropriate damages - they'll be pretty happy.

Time to file for some tech patents then.

 

[kdarling]

Since the jury said the Samsung design didn't infringe, has Judge Koh reversed her injunction on the Tab yet ?

I think that Apple put up a relatively small bond that has to be paid to Samsung for lost sales, as well.

 

[GadgetDon]

Since the jury said the Samsung design didn't infringe, has Judge Koh reversed her injunction on the Tab yet ?

I think that Apple put up a relatively small bond that has to be paid to Samsung for lost sales, as well.

The jury did find that the Tab infringed on all of the utility patents. There is a hearing next month on lifting the tab - the requests for injunctions on the phones won't be decided until December.

 

[jigzat]

I'm all for Apple protecting it's IP, but I'm still not sure how I feel about how this was taken out.


I can tell a bigger difference when I use Apple vs Samsung products than when I taste Pepsi and Coke.

Yes of course you are right. My point is that is not a good comparison in the Apple vs Samsung case.

I also don't think that much people would buy a Samsung thinking that it is an iPad or iPhone, after all a ripoff is a ripoff but I still believe Samsung should come with new ideas that is what competition is for. When a competitor has basically the same product we are not talking about competition but ripoff. I mean look at Windows Phone, I love my iPhone but I have sincerely been thinking about a Windows Phone Smartphone or a Windows 8 tablet.

 

[marksman]

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.

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

Lol it was the evidence presented to them. Your analogy makes zero sense.

If Pepsi execs said our lemon like soda needs to taste like sprite and the packaging needs to look like sprite you would have a better comparison. I don't know where people get these weird ideas that juries have to use evidence in only ways they approve of...

 

[marksman]

Why? Because some tech blog said so?

Pretty much. People have been told for several years by people with vested interests in seeing patent law change claim it is broken. It is silly and obvious and you have it pegged completely. I think this case shows the system is fairing pretty well as this jury considered the evidence and made a rational decision.

Unfortunately it seems like most of the people upset by this subscribe to a sound bite newsletter because all the various arguments are about a sentence long with no real support. "system is broken", "stifles innovation", "bad for the consumer".

As a reasonable person i can see none of those being legitimate arguments in this case so I start to get all tin foil hat when I realize there are a group of people out there, promoted by their own self interests, pushing alleged reform and getting people to spread their word via blog soundbites.

A big part of it is the average person gives way too much credit to lawyers. I graduated from a small high school with about twenty others and more than half of them became lawyers. They are not special.

 

[marksman]

There were 74 potential jurors.


That's plenty of time.

Yeah, how long should they have taken?

Never mind, it's obvious you are not smart enough understand the actual issues, don't care about the actual issues, and are only trolling because you didn't like the result.

But I still find it disgusting that in your need to validate your own preferences you are blaming the jurors who worked hard for $50/day.

That is one thing some people seem to not grasp. The jurors are not a blank slate until they enter deliberations. They absorbed and digested testimony individually during the trial for three whole weeks. Every waking minute it being processed by them. Once deliberations start they all come together with those already sugnificantly evolved viewpoints and try to make a decision.

The reality is those jurors spent close to 3600 combined hours thinking about that case in one way or another. That equals to one person working on it 24 hours a day for over four months. It got considered extensively.

----------

This link explains it all: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

The jury was just lazy.

I hope the person who wrote that is not a lawyer or I am scared

 

[marksman]

Apple went from this:

Image

To this:

Image

Sad.

Am i the only one who finds it funny the person i quoted tried to steal a photo from a website to attack apple for wanting to protect their own resources.

Thick as thieves seems appropriate. Wis steals and thus gets mad at apple for successfully suing someone who stole from them.

 

[linkgx1]

Lol it was the evidence presented to them. Your analogy makes zero sense.

If Pepsi execs said our lemon like soda needs to taste like sprite and the packaging needs to look like sprite you would have a better comparison. I don't know where people get these weird ideas that juries have to use evidence in only ways they approve of...

The irony of your avatar.

First, they disobeyed the rules given to them.

Second. No REASONABLE Jury could make a decision on tech patents that fast.

Third, they felt that 'prior art' didn't exist in this case because its a different processor? The Hell? That's like saying that Coke can sue Pepsi for making cola. But a form of cola existed Coke and it's not prior 'art' because it was sold in Styrofoam cups.


Furthur more with prior art....didn't the Foreman just invalidate his own argument? If, say, pinch to zoom won't work on any other processor that Apple's...then...it can run on the processors designed for Android phones..