Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[furi0usbee]

Coca Cola vs Pepsi is a bad comparison. The Coca Cola recipe is a trade secret, not trademarked, patented, etc. The keep it a secret so they don't have to publicly make it known, thus by allowing people to copy, and it will never expire as copyright/patents do. The beauty of that is that as long as nobody knows the formula, they can forever be the only company to make it. If someone were to find the formula, and post it on the internet, there is nothing they could do to stop people from using it, accept press charges/sue against the person who stole it first.

Apple v Samsung is a bit different.

 

[linkgx1]

Except....
7up was available in 1929, sprite in 1961 and teem in 1964.
Coke gave 7up a 32 year head start before ripping them off, more than 15 years after the patent would've expired

Dammit, I'm talking about Sierra Mist!

 

[Ironduke]

Hopefully this outrageous Decision will be over turned in favour of Sammy.

The Free peoples of earth demand it.

 

[alhedges]

Yes, they can veto around 20% of the jury. In this case the total number was 9, so they can veto 2. Doesn't change the fact that it's difficult to get a fair trial in a home game.

There were 74 potential jurors.

Aww the poor jurors. 22 hours of deliberation, that must be tough. They had a job to do, and boy did they zip through it like a hot knife through butter.

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.

 

[Ballis]

This is a normal view people from corrupt countries hold. They believe all countries in the world are as their own.

is that a fact or are you just talking out of your ass?

 

[linkgx1]

Hopefully this outrageous Decision will be over turned in favour of Sammy.

The Free peoples of earth demand it.

Free peoples? Where are these free peoples located?

 

[blouis79]

Smartphone companies had been innovating for years prior to Apple. So Apple did a better job with the iPhone that made it worth copying. If you read all the individual patents involved in the suit there are a load of them and a load of individual decisions.

So apple wins in USA and Europe and Samsung wins in Korea. Samsung must have soaked up a lot of other people's IP from contract manufacturing for years prior to bringing out their own stuff.

In the bigger picture, the patent war seems about negotiating terms for patent cross-licencing. All the tech companies have their warchest of patents.

 

[tninety]

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

The jury was just lazy.

 

[KdParker]

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.

Not sure that fits here, since you can't patent a flavor.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's can't be a fair trial for the reasons I've already stated. If the decision came about in a neutral venue, in a neutral court with an international neutral jury. Then I would gladly accept the decision.

You know America has history of getting it's own way regardless of what anyone else says. If they included some international outside objective counsel then I would consider it fair and balanced. But how things turned out it's all a bit too easy and comfortable for my taste.

But who's to say that an "international neutral jury" wouldn't come up with the same outcome?

If your eyes are from France or Germany or even Korea... is Samsung's infringement less noticeable then?

This case was presented to the jurors for many weeks. The evidence was shown. Hundreds of hours were spent in the courtroom.

I fail to see how a different group of people in a different country would rule any different. Infringement is infringement... or copying is copying... regardless of the venue.

 

[John.B]

Yeah man, Apple invented rounded corners. How dare anyone use rounded corners on industrial designs since the existence of the square?

Did you completely miss that rectangles and rounded corners played no part in the jury's $1.05B verdict?

Did you even read the link to the CNET story?

 

[linkgx1]

Not sure that fits here, since you can't patent a flavor.

But you can patent the recipe for that flavor...KFC style.

 

[Rogifan]

Yes they did. I'm not sure Apple had a patent on the look of a tablet... just on a phone.

In regards to phones... the jury ruled that Samsung's phones looked a little too similar to Apple's phones.

Well there's this from 2004:

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889

----------

Did you completely miss that rectangles and rounded corners played no part in the jury's $1.05B verdict?

Did you even read the link to the CNET story?

And people complain about Apple fans being kool-aid drinkers.

 

[John.B]

So what chance the jury members get free Apple products for life?

"Free iDevices for life! How could we decide otherwise?"

Source? Oh, you don't have a source, you made that up just now because you didn't have a legitimate argument? Yeah, I thought so.

 

[KPOM]

I guess it solidifies it, but I guess I disliked the way the juror said they came about their decisions. Meh.

What in particular? I think they went about it in a reasonable way. I doubt that any jury would go through every little detail and parse words in statutes or testimony. It appears they addressed the "big picture" and then applied their general finding to the specific devices. The "big picture" was a) "Did Samsung infringe?" and b) "Were the patents valid?". After that, it becomes more mechanical. "Did this device contain infringement X?"

Laws ought to be written in such a way that a jury can figure out how to apply them.

When Samsung's lawyers debrief, they will probably think that they should have explained their case more simply (hammer home what prior art is, explain why those e-mails didn't mean what they appeared to mean), and not gotten bogged down into details about FRAND and the minutiae.

 

[69650]

Therein lies the problem of having a jury of laymen to decide on a highly technical case. They should keep jury cases for general trials and have a panel of experts judge cases like this. I doubt these people, however well intentioned, were able to put their own experiences and feelings to one side and look at the evidence without any bias.

 

[tdream]

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's plenty of time? I don't think many would agree with you there. It's one of the most complicated patent cases in history and 9 civilians concluded the entire case in 22 hours. Nah I don't think that was enough time. Judging by the damages, looks like the spent most of the time writing down large numbers.

I can validate my own preferences because a Korean court and a UK court found resolutions I thought acceptable. This court and case I do not agree with.

Now instead of hurling insults in my general direction, how about you admit it would of been extraordinarily difficult for Samsung to get a decent result from the situation?

 

[cvaldes]

That's great. It's still doesn't change what I said and nothing you say will.

About the fact that you don't get it? I absolutely agree.

And guess what? It doesn't matter. The jury based their decision on existing patent law. Since this is a case with a huge number of points, it is unlikely that any other jury would have reached a dramatically different verdict.

It wasn't even close.

Arguing about whether or not this result would have been the same in a different country is irrelevant. This was about two companies selling products on American soil and whether or not American patent law was correctly followed by those two companies.

So you didn't like the verdict? Too bad for you. That's the way these folks interpreted the law.

Now if you think the jury did not base their verdict on existing law, I suggest you write a letter to the judge. Of course, that judge won't be able to change the way you think.

The problem is that you don't understand that you are not part of the jury verdict. Due to lack of congressional foresight, appeasing MacRumors reader tdream is not part of the judiciary process.

 

[tdream]

But who's to say that an "international neutral jury" wouldn't come up with the same outcome?

If your eyes are from France or Germany or even Korea... is Samsung's infringement less noticeable then?

This case was presented to the jurors for many weeks. The evidence was shown. Hundreds of hours were spent in the courtroom.

I fail to see how a different group of people in a different country would rule any different. Infringement is infringement... or copying is copying... regardless of the venue.

I would accept the decision because it had been attained in a way that could be upheld in any arena.

Infringement is infringement? No actually that's what the case was deciding.
UK and Korean courts found differently.

 

[69650]

But who's to say that an "international neutral jury" wouldn't come up with the same outcome?

If your eyes are from France or Germany or even Korea... is Samsung's infringement less noticeable then?

This case was presented to the jurors for many weeks. The evidence was shown. Hundreds of hours were spent in the courtroom.

I fail to see how a different group of people in a different country would rule any different. Infringement is infringement... or copying is copying... regardless of the venue.

Apple have already lost a number of legal cases regarding the same IP content in a number of other countries including the UK, Australia, Germany and Holland.

 

[cmChimera]

But is 1 billion really enough in that case? Even if Samsung makes the devices (future ones) look completely different, they still have a name these days (Galaxy) and are still guaranteed sales. Meh, it's complicated.

Well they can still treble damages, and really I feel like this suit is a threat more than anything. They want people to stop ripping them off, and hopefully this accomplishes it.

Quick question since your studying in this area. The software code is protected by copyright ? If so why do we need software patents, often there very broad and cover an idea.
If the code is covered by copyright and someone does something similar with different code then we have another way.
With software patents quite often this would be classed as infringing as the idea was the same ?

Areas of IP often overlap. iOS is surely covered by copyright, but the patents are more specific and probably don't require actual code to be copied. For copyright claims you HAVE to intentionally copy to be infringing, whereas patents are infringed regardless of intent. So it's much safer to patent specific parts of the OS to protect inventions.

 

[John.B]

It's can't be a fair trial for the reasons I've already stated. If the decision came about in a neutral venue, in a neutral court with an international neutral jury. Then I would gladly accept the decision.

You know America has history of getting it's own way regardless of what anyone else says. If they included some international outside objective counsel then I would consider it fair and balanced. But how things turned out it's all a bit too easy and comfortable for my taste.

This was a trial about Samsung products sold in the US of A. That's the jurisdiction, so that's where the trial is held.

Europe can hold their own trial if they so choose, now that most of the European countries have ceded their sovereignty to the EU.

 

[tdream]

About the fact that you don't get it? I absolutely agree.

And guess what? It doesn't matter. The jury based their decision on existing patent law. Since this is a case with a huge number of points, it is unlikely that any other jury would have reached a dramatically different verdict.

It wasn't even close.

So you didn't like the verdict? Too bad for you. That's the way these folks interpreted the law.

Now if you think the jury did not base their verdict on existing law, I suggest you write a letter to the judge. Of course, that judge won't be able to change the way you think.

The problem is that you don't understand that you are not part of the jury verdict. Due to lack of congressional foresight, appeasing MacRumors reader tdream is not part of the judiciary process.

You're right I can't change or affect any of that.

 

[coachingguy]

For all of those "This is bad for consumers..." No. This will force Samsung and others to innovate on their own.

Or those who think Samsung will increase their costs to Apple, No.

Samsung isn't going to screw Apple on their other business contracts, that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Not to mention that those contracts are already signed...

If anything, when these other makers start creating their OWN ideas, that will put pressure on Apple to improve theirs.

Coachingguy

 

[Rogifan]

Therein lies the problem of having a jury of laymen to decide on a highly technical case. They should keep jury cases for general trials and have a panel of experts judge cases like this. I doubt these people, however well intentioned, were able to put their own experiences and feelings to one side and look at the evidence without any bias.

What does a case being "highly technical" have to do with bias? When the jury ruled in favor of Google in the Google-Oracle trial does that mean they were biased in favor of Google? I'm going to give these jurors the benefit of the doubt as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's sad that so many are willing to smear the jury because they didn't like the decision they reached.