Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[linkgx1]

Why would he be biased toward Apple just because he holds a patent ? That is a very closed minded view. Samsung has patents too so why wouldn't he be biased toward Samsung ?

Because Apple is an American company...and declined any of Sammy's patents.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

Apple opposed the motion to expedite the ruling on the lifting of the ban :

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120831002313526

Even after Koh said the ruling would be done quickly, Apple is filing to reconsideration. Underhanded...

 

[kdarling]

Why would he be biased toward Apple just because he holds a patent ? That is a very closed minded view. Samsung has patents too so why wouldn't he be biased toward Samsung ?

The foreman reportedly went through a lot of trouble to get his patent, so he was biased towards defending them (his "aha" moment), not towards invalidation.

If you look at his patent, his (self) defensive posture is even more understandable. It's as vague in implementation details as most of Apple's patents are. (His patent is basically the simple idea of having a DVR with a removable hard disk that you can copy shows to/from and then take somewhere else. Pretty obvious. Most DVRs already had external drive hookups.)

In any case, there's no indication that the jury seriously tried to see if Samsung's code actually infringed on Apple's software patents. Instead, they apparently conflated two totally different things (trade dress and utility patents) and figured if one was infringed by Samsung, the others must be too. Frankly, people here on this forum do more due diligence in many of our debates.

 

[kdarling]

Apple opposed the motion to expedite the ruling on the lifting of the ban :

I think that Apple's lawyers are hoping that Judge Koh will set aside the Tab's non-infringement of the D'889 patent (rounded rectangle slab) this December. That's why they claim dropping the injunction in September is unfair. Plus, of course, they don't want the Tab available before the Holiday Season, as you intimated.

Btw, it's worth noting that Judge Koh originally denied the Tab injunction last December, because she felt that the rounded rectangle patent would be found invalid.

Apple appealed and in June, the Court of Appeals decided that, in their opinion, the D'889 patent was probably valid and infringed by the Tab. They remanded the case back to Koh, who first asked for more evidence from both sides, then abruptly changed her mind and granted the injunction without any more information... which is what one of the three Appeals judges had recommended.

Now the jury found that the Tab did not infringe on the design patent, but it was valid. So far, all the judges have been wrong about one piece

 

[imageWIS]

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.

You clearly don't know what stealing is. Posting photos ≠ stealing.

 

[Oletros]

You clearly don't know

Corrected

He don't know what stealing ios and he down't know how law works