Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors

from the rushing-to-get-things-done dept

Late Friday afternoon, the jury in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute surprised just about everyone by telling the court it had reached a verdict. Given the number of complex issues it needed to go through, most experts expected it to take well into this week. According to observers in the courtroom, one of Apple's lawyers was so surprised and unprepared that he had to rush back to court without a suit, and showed up in a polo shirt. The quickness of the decision certainly resulted in some questions about just how thoroughly the jury reviewed the instructions and then considered each of the approximately 700 questions it needed to answer (initial jury form is embedded below). As we noted in an update to our post on Friday, about half an hour after the ruling was read out -- and long after most of the press stopped paying attention -- the judge announced at least two problems with the ruling, where the jury had awarded damages, despite not finding infringement.

As we said on Friday, that certainly raised significant questions about how carefully the jury actually reviewed the issues in question. While some said it could have just been a clerical error in answering all the questions, that appears not to be the case. Because after the judge instructed the jury to fix the mistakes, they didn't reassign those damages elsewhere, they just wiped them off the slate. Besides, even if you were to argue it was merely a mistake, that's no excuse. This "mistake" could have ended up costing millions of dollars. That's quite a "mistake."

Over at Groklaw, they're discussing this and other evidence of jury misconduct. The awarding of damages for things they found didn't infringe was already pretty bad, but some of the other details highlight how the jury clearly did not read the jury instructions (or bother to comprehend them).

A Reuters interview with the jury foreman demonstrates conclusively that the jury ignored the rules. Foreman Velvin Hogan told Reuters that they wanted to punish Samsung:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
That sounds nice, except... patent awards are only supposed to be about making the patent holder whole, not about punishing the infringer. And, in fact, the jury instructions clearly stated this:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
And yet here's the jury foreman flat out admitting that they decided to use the award amounts to punish Samsung. Elsewhere, it becomes pretty clear that Hogan was hardly an impartial juror. He has his own patent, 7,352,953 on "recording and storing video information." That, by itself, does not automatically make one biased in favor of the system (I know plenty of people with patents who hate the patent system), but he admitted elsewhere that he ended up making decisions based on how he would feel if it was his patent at stake, rather than on what the law actually says -- and then said he needed to rule as if he were speaking out "for all" patent holders. In an an interview with Bloomberg, he made that bias clear:
“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”
He then told Bloomberg that "he explained his thinking to his fellow jurors" and that seemed to drive the discussion. An interview with another juror, over at News.com, confirmed that Hogan's views focused the jury, with one juror admitting that they just started ignoring prior art, because that question was too time consuming. Seriously.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
Yeah. Read that sucker again. The jury instructions are again clear that the jury needs to consider the prior art, but according to this juror, Manuel Ilagan, after foreman Hogan talked about his own experience with patents, they decided that prior art was "bogging us down" and they might as well "skip" it.

In the long run, the jury verdict probably won't matter much, because this case would have been appealed no matter what. But these kinds of stories certainly give Samsung plenty of fodder to ask the judge to toss out the jury verdict already. It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Mike C. (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:01am

    Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...

    A friend of mine shared this over the weekend and it really made me wonder just how "punished" Samsung will end up being after all of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:45am

    Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...

    ... he admitted elsewhere that he ended up making decisions based on how he would feel if it was his patent at stake, rather than what the law actually says ...

    Attorneys are generally barred from making "Golden Rule" arguments, i.e. asking jurors to put themselves in plaintiff's shoes. Damages are supposed to be compensatory and objective, so an attorney's Golden Rule argument is pretty much manifestly improper. This objectivity requirement is made clear to jurors as well.

    Dunno if we'll see JNOV, mistrial, or what, but I've got $5 this case is not yet heading to the appeals court. Stuff to be dealt with below first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:46am

    Mike, you are just a Samsung paid shill. Admit it. AND ANSWER MY QUESTION ALREADY! IS DH GAY OR NOT? Stop running away, man up and give that simple answer: Yes or No?

    /troll

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:46am

    Sounds like the jury foreman admitted to personally benefitting from the outcome of this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Steph, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:47am

    Agreed re: juries

    "It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact."

    Preach it, brother.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:50am

    Re: Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...

    Well, considering the thing was messed up Apple might actually come out looking pretty bad. But then again it might push them back to competing in the market, not in the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:51am

    Another poster boy for patent reform.

    The sad part is that if you actually read that patent, the guy admits to the fact that he's pretty much trying to patent a PC with off the shelf software.

    The idea that HE thinks he deserves standing to sue over this nonsense is just mind boggling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    What's so surprising?

    A group of common people, forced to take time away from their jobs and families at less than federal minimum wage, told they can't leave until they come to a decision about laws no one fully understands... and they're surprised the jury just skipped over the complicated stuff and rushed to a decision so they could go home/back to work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    william (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Could we find the jury in contempt of the court for blatantly ignoring instructions from the court?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Isn't this...

    Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience.


    Isn't this considered "jury tampering"?

    Allowing the jury to hear testimony without adversarial hearing is illegal isn't it? Shouldn't Hogan be in jail for this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    What a great idea, why bother considering complicated evidence that just gets you 'bogged down'? It's much easier to just skip all that and assume that if someone is getting sued or prosecuted for something then they must be guilty.

    It's not our fault if someone gets locked up for murder for 2 decades based on some suspicious looking evidence that turned out to be bad! The evidence was just too complicated for us to consider, and we just wanted to punish a potential murderer!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    this case should never have gone to court. the only winners are the lawyers; the only losers are the customers. with the truth now coming out as to the reason the verdict was reached so speedily, it should be rejected. notice of rulings that have been applied in other countries should be taken here as well. the USA already has a reputation of doing anything necessary to preserve it's hold on industries and commodities through forced legislation, whilst kicking up fuck when the same thing is done by somewhere else. this has not done it any favours at all. Apple make good products. they are not all Apple thought up though, as everyone knows. the problems are they are
    1)too expensive
    2)not so good as to be able to compete without government and court help. quite pathetic, really

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Win-win?

    So, Samsung gets to look like the good guy fighting against big, bad Apple; gets to get a lot of free publicity about how their gadgets are so great that Apple has to compete in the courtroom; and get to have the whole thing turned over because the jury was filled with morons.

    Buy your Samsung stock now, while it's (temporarily) low(er).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:19am

    That interview with the foreman is astonishing.
    Say what you will about the patents, their validity, and whether or not this should even have made it to trial: this verdict is a miscarriage of justice if I've ever seen one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Cash we get a kickstarter to challenge patent 7352953 based pn prior art?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Can we get a kickstarter to challenge patent 7352953 based pn prior art?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    SpencerMatthewp, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Jury Nullification in action

    Techdirt is the place I learned about Jury nullification. Essentially, the jury has the right to disregard the instructions of the judge and do what every they want to do. Techdirt has been very keen on showing how horribly courts treat people that know about this, and even more so on those that would act on it.

    In this case, we have a jury that did exactly what they wanted to do. And surprise, surprise, surprise, Techdirt is mad because they buy cheap Android devices for their employees, and they know the costs are about to go up.

    Honestly, I think this is a bad ruling, and I think Apple should have fought this out in the market place. It just pisses me off to see Techdirt be so wishy-washy. Decide what you believe, and stick with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    No mistrial here as there is a verdict but you can bet that on appeal Samsung will win.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Doug Wheeler (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Jury of peers?

    The problem with the juries chosen for these types of cases is that they aren't really "peers" of the accused. In this case, the accused is a major, multinational consumer electronics firm. The only jurists who could be considered peers would be employees/representatives of similar firms. Using a group of consumers with just a few days of "training" on the issues to judge a corporation that spent thousands of man-hours on the issue is almost meaningless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:26am

    I find it amusing just how many interviews the foreman had in the span of three days. Serving on a jury seems to have come a long way from 'civic duty' for some people.

    I remember from jury duty once that the winning attorneys were quite adamant... "if you believe in your verdict... don't talk to anyone".

    Just who is Velvin Hogan, and why does he hate Apple so much?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:28am

    Re:

    When DH said goodbye to my wife last night, I got the feeling he might be gay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Jury Nullification in action

    "Techdirt is the place I learned about Jury nullification. Essentially, the jury has the right to disregard the instructions of the judge and do what every they want to do."

    "Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment."
    Swing and a miss there chief. Jury nullification is the jury acquitting guilty defendants, not handing out justice based on their own opinions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    "Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment."

    They were just being flexible with that definition, and applied it backwards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re: Jury Nullification in action

    How are those two in conflict?

    Can't you believe in free speech, and also criticize someone for what they say? Can't you believe in the right to bear arms, and also criticize someone for misusing a gun?

    If so, why can't you believe in the right of juries to nullify, and also criticize them when the power is misused?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    " It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials."

    Damn US Legal system with it's jury of peers and all that nonsense. We should just have everything tried in front of those wonderful impartial activist elected judges.

    When will you ever learn that it's not about patents, the legal system has it's own challenges that just happen to sometimes touch the fields that have shunned you and turned you into a bitter blogger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re: Jury of peers?

    Pretty much. Especially in patent cases, juries are terribly equipped to make informed decisions. They (as a whole) have no idea of the current state of the art, "obviousness" to one skilled in the art, and what an appropriate royalty rate would be on an invention.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Re: Jury Nullification in action

    I believe what you are referring to is called "Bizarro Jury Nullification".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    ""Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment."

    Swing and a miss there chief. Jury nullification is the jury acquitting guilty defendants, not handing out justice based on their own opinions."


    +1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:40am

    Re:

    peer: one that is of equal standing with another
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer

    Equal in what way(s)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    That's the problem with the attitude in the penal/court system. People are egocentric and want to punish people because that makes them feel better rather than making a responsible and positive decision to remedy casual factors that created this problem in the first place. "Lock him up for life, he murdered people and punishment makes me happy." It's "an eye for an eye" thinking. This is followed by the assumption that such punitive action will deter future action from others, by "sending a message", which it doesn't.

    What's immensely repugnant is the fact that this foreman has a patent on what is essential a Tivo. Tivo has been around since '99 and he filed in 2002. His patent is vague and is invalidated by prior art to the point that someone should slap the patent clerk for being stupid enough to let it pass. Then, he comes upon this case which he uses as a platform to self-enrich his own patent by convincing the jury to side with Apple, whom uses equally vague and obvious patents.

    Somebody needs to call for a mistrial or something equally effectual. Then, the next trial should render those patents invalid due to prior art.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    I do not like the stuff I have heard about pertaining to the Foreman of the Jury.
    And in the end the losers will be the Consumers and the Winners will be the Lawyers who are all paid good money whether on the winning or losing side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re: Agreed re: juries

    It results from the general application of the 7th Amendment to the Constitution. While some have advocated a "complex case" exception on due process grounds, such as, for example, some patent cases, it has not been definitively ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re:

    I think so, I'll have to find out though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Both companies were pretty stupid about it all. Samsung tried to countersue Apple with three standards essentials.

    What I find interesting is that both companies looked extremely petty in this case while the Jury Forman held the patent that was liscensed to both companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:59am

    This ruling is a bigger disaster for Android than it is Samsung. How much did Google pay you for this article, shill?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:01am

    I'd read about all this within a day of the verdict, and frankly, I'm no legal expert, but everything that the Jury Foreman did sounds like he basically led the rest of the jury members by the nose to reach a verdict he had already decided for.

    Basically, Apple deserves to win because if this was me how would I feel. Nothing based on the facts. (We'll overlook the fact that his patent is basically for TiVo, which was on the market 3 years prior to his patent. Which is something that has already been brought up on other websites, as well as the comments here.)

    This is someone who went in with a certain mindset and the facts be damned. Then convinced others with his "expertise" on the subject at hand to basically view things how he wanted them to.

    This is definitely going to hurt Apple in an appeal, and very much hurt that foreman. I hope someone challenges his patent and they mop the floor with him. Teach him a lesson, and perhaps give him more than a slap on the wrist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re:

    Corporations ARE people too!

    I think I just vomited a little in my mouth when I typped that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Re: Re:

    I'm not going to debate anything. But I just want to see a list of things that are prior art. Just some examples from the trial.

    If anything you're right, the right thing to do would declare the mistrial and then nullify the patent suits altogether.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    Actually, it's not. As all the patents that were violated were done solely by Samsung and are not at all common to the Android operating system as a whole.

    There's quite a few articles on the matter, as well as a response from Google on the verdict, online. Feel free to use that brain you may be lacking to check for yourself.

    Engadget, The Verge, and various Android related sites all have the information needed to essentially shoot down your stupidity, as well as the exact quote from Google.

    Unless of course you're one of the ACs trying to sound like a troll. In which case, great job! Short and to the point, with the ad hom thrown in for good measure. I award you a 10/10 if that's the case. If you're just an actual troll though, stfu.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Velvin Hogan was the Jury Foreman and he held a certain patent he liscensed to Apple. He swayed the jury to not consider prior art when they were explicitly ordered to.

    Motive:
    If this patent to Apple had gotten nullified, Apple could get their money back from him if they chose to sue him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Re:

    LOL!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    Don't be such a freetard -- giving out your opinions for free. Keep them to yourself until you can find someone to pay for them. That's how you know the world *truly* values them for what they're worth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    "This ruling is a bigger disaster for Android than it is Samsung."

    How so? Android was not implicated in this fight. It was a fight strictly between Samsung and Apple, based on stupid things such as design patents (seriously, design patents?).

    Assuming that Samsung comes hurt out of this (my guess is, they won't), there are others ready to take its place. Asus, for example.

    Android will be just fine. iOS, I suspect, not so much. Remember, Apple was king in the times of the Apple II. Then Jobs left and Apple almost died. Apple was only able to find its course after Jobs came back. With Jobs gone, I suspect that Apple will take a nosedive soon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:18am

    Re: Jury of peers?

    Hmm, there's an idea... We'll get the high profile people from other electronic mega corporations to be in the jury. We can have it consist of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Page, Howard Stringer, and a few others. That way perhaps they can also get a bit of a feel of how things will go if they decide to sue one another later on... Or if that fails, perhaps they'll end up killing one another in the deliberation room.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    "In the long run, the jury verdict probably won't matter much, because this case would have been appealed no matter what. But these kinds of stories certainly give Samsung plenty of fodder to ask the judge to toss out the jury verdict already. It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow juries on patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact."

    Mike Mansick wasn't talking about Google, was he talking about neither Samsung nor Apple. He was talking about how the Jury Foreman had a conflict of interest.
    In my opinion, if his liscensed patent to Apple were nullified, he could be sued by Apple for getting their money back.

    As far as the trial, people forget that both sides were suing over patents that would normally have been nullified or found equally infringing and therefore, dismissed with prejudice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Rich, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    1) This wasn't a criminal case.
    2) Jury Nullification favors the defendant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Jury of peers?

    "Pretty much. Especially in patent cases, juries are terribly equipped to make informed decisions. They (as a whole) have no idea of the current state of the art, "obviousness" to one skilled in the art, and what an appropriate royalty rate would be on an invention."

    Aren't those things supposed to be addressed by expert witnesses? You never have a jury of experts at any trial. In fact, being anything like an expert in anything remotely related to the case will probably get you dismissed from the jury pool in a heartbeat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re:

    Was your "wife" a man?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:43am

    oranges = apples

    Say Android sets in general infringed on roughly $30 worth of licenses per set.

    Then let's say iPhones devices infringed approx ~$10 of Samsung patents and ~$10 of Motorola per device and more iPhones sold than Samsung devices.

    They might be paying lawyers millions of dollar and grid-locking the public court system (that WE pay for) for what could essentially be the difference of the cost of a dinner out.

    But I'm sure Tim Cook and Apple took this decision very heavily and weighed all their options.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re:

    One can certainly hope. A future without Apples inability to compete in the market place with over priced products and dragging innovation into a technological dark age, is a bright future indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hey! I have a patent on vomiting a little when expressing nice things about corporations! It is licensed exclusively to Apple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    SpencerMatthewp, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Hey, I can read wikipedia too:
    "Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law."

    It's the second line that is important here, which of course is the line you didn't copy/paste.

    There are a few things to keep in mind.

    1.) Jury nullification is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. "Jury nullification is a de facto (In law, [de facto] often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established.") power of juries."

    It is a concept that comes about due to the nature of our judicial system. Because we have a trial by jury, the jurors can use their own judgement to determine their vote. If they feel certain portions of the law are incompatible with justice, they can feel free to ignore those portions of the law.

    That is what happened here. (Note: I don't think it's right.) To dispense "justice", the jurors ignored prior art, and instructions that would have interfered with their idea of said justice.

    2.) There is nothing in your wikipedia article that limits jury nullification to criminal cases, nor criminal law. The idea is not that guilty parties go free, but that the law itself is unjust. The thing that the jury is nullifying is not the guilt of the defendant, it's the unjust law.

    Again, the jurors felt that prior art was not a valid factor in the patent law. Again, it's a wrong attitude, but it's perfectly within the realm of jury nullification.

    3.) Because jury nullification is a concept, rather than codified law, its application is less than clear. Guilt and or innocence is not the issue, it's the justice of the law being applied.

    In theory, a jury could find a defendant guilty when the evidence overwhelmingly points to their guilt, but the law says they should be released because the arresting officer failed to read them the Miranda Rights.

    I will agree that there are some circumstances not right in this verdict. I agree that ultimately, if this ruling stands it's going to be bad for everyone. Unfortunately, the jury is well within its rights to do what they did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, but any man that spends time with another man's wife must be gay, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re:

    A Verdict That Alters an Industry
    Samsung .. lost on almost every count ..... Google, which makes the Android software that runs at the core of Samsung phones, will clearly feel an impact .... Most popular smartphones today are a slab of glass and metal controlled through a touch-screen full of icons arrayed on the screen. .... the user interface — the icons and other features that users see and touch — of the Nokia Windows phones look distinctly different from the iPhone. Nokia, a longtime maker of phones, also has a thick portfolio of patents to protect itself. .... Android phones are the most common smartphones on the market today. Samsung is the world’s largest maker of smartphones and it has been quickly gaining market share. Collectively, the various Android phones from Samsung and other makers easily outsell Apple’s iPhones. .... While Google is not involved in this case, Apple was clearly going after Android all along .... “It’s not good news for Google ..... Apple’s real target is the Android ecosystem, the Android world, everything having to do with Androids. That’s really what they are targeting here.”


    technbiz.blogspot

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    "I will agree that there are some circumstances not right in this verdict. I agree that ultimately, if this ruling stands it's going to be bad for everyone. Unfortunately, the jury is well within its rights to do what they did."

    And the judge (or appeals court) will be well within hers to set aside a verdict in the light of gross jury misconduct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 11:58am

    Re: Best part is that Samsung may benefit from a loss...

    Hilarious

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re:

    “This verdict threatens the future of Google’s Android products. Based on this verdict, Apple will likely sue other competitors that use the Android system,” Mitby said. “The result will likely be an increase in costs to Android users because of licensing fees to Apple. This will drive many Android consumers over to Apple. Next to Samsung, the biggest loser today is Google.”

    forbes.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Any links proving his patent was licensed to Apple? I've seen this stated a few times in comments, but seen no proof.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    it shows exactly how scared Apple is of competition when they are already trying to get injunctions against Samsung products. to me this is further showing that competing in the market is not the important thing for Apple, competing in court is. they know the recent verdict will not only be appealed but may well be disregarded anyway because of the information that has come to light over how the jury ignored instructions, ignored proceedures, took notice of a clearly biased patent holder and then arrived at their conclusion to 'punish' Samsung.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You sound as if you might have looked into the swirling abyss of DH's nipples.

    I liken it to the time vortex from Doctor Who.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    anon, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    The Jury

    Ok lets get this straight.

    In the time the jury was being picked we learnt that one of the jurors has a family member who would probably benefit if Apple won by apples share raising in price , which they did after the judgement, very obvious bias here.
    Then we learn that one of the jurors have a patent in the same field as both companies.

    Now please explain to me how anyone in there right mind could allow these two people to be on this jury.

    If anything the Judge should have attempted to make sure the jury was full of people that would in no way be biased towards either party or have an opinion or interest in either party wining.

    I don't see this as a failure of the Jury, although they should be punished for wasting the courts time, possibly by having to write a 100 page essay on what happened in the debates.

    If you have someone who has experience in the subject they can explain from there perspective which could easily sway people on the jury that suddenly think they are talking to an expert.

    The judge should dismiss the jury, accept that she made mistakes and allowed a biased jury to sit and allow a retrial. At the least the Judge has to accept responsibility for the mess and try to sort it out as best as she can. She knows the contents of the case and she should be able to make a judgement on her own. Maybe like the judge in England and Korea.

    Korea being the best example because the Judge there forced them to be in a position where both lost and the only way for them to not have there products removed from the market would be to talk to each other, more so Apple as Samsung will lose less than Apple by having a few of there phones banned from the country. Apple has 5 phones while Samsung has possibly hundreds of different smartphones they could replace those removed from the market and Samsung could change manufacturing very quickly to change the looks of there banned phones where Apple could not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Everything is prior art. Everybody builds on top of what others who went before them built. "You didn't build that." -- Barack Obama

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Phillip (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Brilliant idea, instead of a jury of people since people aren't the peers of Samsung or Apple.

    The jury can be made up of other corporations.
    We'll have a jury made up of 12 corporations in the technology field.
    IBM
    Microsoft
    Redhat
    Motorolla
    Nokia
    Sony
    HP
    Dell
    Logitech
    Oracle
    Facebook
    Intel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    Re:

    Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof...

    /techdirtbag shill rant

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Phillip (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    except as has been pointed out multiple times it is used in favor of a defendant, not in favor of a claimant against a defendant as is the case here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Jury of peers?

    True, but I think that in patent cases you end up with it being decided truly by minutae of the wording of the patents and other fine technical details. It is more grey areas, which is why people complain non-stop about patents and patent litigation. You also have actions by the defense that can be construed by a skilled lawyer to be signs of willfullness, but those same actions are done by every other company in existance (e.g., comparing your product to your competitors and seeing how you can best them or change your features to be better than theirs)

    Compared this to say a murder trial where you can have much more definitive answers. "The blood on the murder weapon only has a 1:151862156 chance it came from someone else." It's not always more cut and dry, but lends itself to be more cut and dry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Any links proving his patent was licensed to Apple? I've seen this stated a few times in comments, but seen no proof.

    Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof...

    /techdirtbag shill rant

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    The only reason jury nullification is legal is because you can't *know* that the jury "nullified" a particular law. (That's the "de facto" part you mentioned above)

    When the jury then opens it's big, fat mouth, it changes everything. When there's *proof* that the jury disobeyed the court, then it's grounds for a mistrial, or JNOV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    This attitude towards punishment is carry-over from the "re-education" campaign regarding "Sharing". To think it wasn't so long ago that you cold share a song with your friends, and they'd go out and buy that album...

    Truly sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    So what your saying is, the jurors were douchebags... yep that's how I see it too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re:

    Let us know what you find. I'd love to see at least the foreman brought up on contempt charges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Michael Long (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: The Jury

    "...full of people that would in no way be biased towards either party or have an opinion or interest..."

    I think "in no way" is pretty much an impossibility. You want as little bias as possible, but short of growing jurors in a vat, everyone is going to have an education, a job, friends, opinions, and so forth.

    Both sides interview jurors, and both sides have a limited number of challenges they get use to eliminate people they feel might be prejudicial to the case at hand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh hey, you found one website with one link and no facts. Just an opinion.

    I can present at least half a dozen links, with quotes from Google, and opinions that all shoot that forbes bit down.

    Care to try again?

    And no, that verdict DOES NOT threaten Google at all. The patents deemed infringing are patents which are ONLY available/found on Samsung products, namely those which have Touchwiz on them, and namely devices that are all already out of date.

    The same has nearly happened with other manufacturers, HTC being one of the more recent, and one simple code/OS change later (since they add Sense) and they were no longer in violation.

    Stock Android DOES NOT violate Apple's patents. Contrary to what you may believe and what Forbes, erroneously, thinks.

    And if you think Android users will flock to Apple you and Forbes are sadly mistaken. Apple's on the market right now. Yet consumers choose to go with Android. Why is that? Their choice. As long as there are Android devices, some will choose to use them.

    Of course, if you remove all choice, which would require removing the ability to purchase any Android product, that still wouldn't guarantee anyone going to Apple because there are still choices, namely Blackberry and WP7 (soon to be WP8).

    You suck at this. Just fyi.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Jury Nullification in action

    So... what was 'nullified' in this 'jury nullification?'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Michael Long (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Re: What's so surprising?

    Another aspect is that everyone kind of assumes that the jury had to sit there and go over everything from scratch, when in fact they've been listening to witnesses and forming their own opinions for the past month.

    If the majority believed that Samsung had violated Apple's patents prior to adjournment, then the actual vote could be considered to be little more than a formality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    SpencerMatthewp, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    I would certainly hope the appeals court sets aside this verdict.

    Who wants to get stuck with the current generation of technology? Apple has no incentive to create new products, and no one will want to try to compete out of fear they'll just get slapped down.

    I'm not arguing that the verdict was wrong. I'm just arguing that the jury had the right to do it. I'm not convinced of misconduct within the jury.

    It seems clear to me that some members should have been excluded during voir dire. Several were obviously too ignorant, others were obviously biased. Attorney's making as much money as these were should have been able to spot these guys and excluded them.

    In this case, I'd say the majority of the blame lands right on the Samsung defense team.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Here's your proof:

    http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-leaned-on-engin eer-patent-holder

    "Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his."

    I don't know how you stand to question my intelligence when I can provide proof regardless of what you assume isn't reasonable thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Your diatribe to attempt to save face is pointless. Jury nullification can only be use to acquit, not convict. It stems from the 5th Amendment clause for Double Jeopardy. See, if a jury decides to acquit for any reason there is nothing a judge can do about it because of Double Jeopardy. In all other cases the jury can do whatever it wants, but afterwards a judge can say, "No way, Jose. You guys funked up. Mistrial, redo." It is only called "Nullification" when it actually works to effectively nullify the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Josh, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    This is the reason Jury Nullification only works when declaring an otherwise guilty party 'innocent.' Judges cannot pronounce someone guilty, only juries can. Judges can, however, vacate a guilty verdict. For that reason a jury can't just decide someone is guilty regardless of the law; the judge would step in and overturn it. If they declare someone innocent, though, there's nothing the judge can do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    I just kind of wanted to throw this link out there too.

    Not in response to yours Wally, but in case others are interested.

    Some sites are reporting that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which is a stock Google phone made by Samsung, is in violation of two patents. Yet it isn't being identified by Apple insofar as getting an injunction on goes. (Meaning Apple isn't trying to have it removed from store shelves and what have you.)

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3272154/apple-identifies-samsung-products-injunction-afte r-verdict

    I only semi-bring it up because in that article you presented it specifically mentions the phone, yet nowhere else have I found information on it (regarding injunctions).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    I'm not arguing that the verdict was wrong. I'm just arguing that the jury had the right to do it. I'm not convinced of misconduct within the jury.

    The jury can do whatever it wants. The jury isn't on trial. However, what the jury does can be grounds for a mistrial or appeal, except in the case of Jury Nullification.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Bingo! We have a winner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Mak, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

    Velvin Hogan

    Velvin Hogan was the Jury Foreman and he held a certain patent, he licensed to Apple. He swayed the jury to not consider prior art when they were explicitly ordered to.

    Motive:
    If this patent to Apple had gotten nullified, Apple could get their money back from him if they chose to sue him.

    So, Why would Judge KOH even allow Velvin Hoganon on the Jury panel? Judge KOH is very unbiased towards Samsung as was the previous Judge, Judge KOH needs to resign for failing to do Justice in this major case.

    Velvin Hogan, Judge KOH including many others are amongst the Jury panel who are paid or influenced by Apple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    I read that article - I still don't see where it says the patent was licensed to Apple. Care to quote the exact line that states it was?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    If that's meant to be an insult, please feel free to carry on... Just make sure you read the question, and your "proof" before you answer. Nowhere does the article say the patent held by the juror was licensed to Apple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Medbob, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

    Misconduct?

    Yes, I would consider it Misconduct....
    that they handed the Jury a 700 question form.

    The Judge should have done HIS job of winnowing away the unimportant details and getting down to the meat of the issue. Really? Rounded corners? That should have been thrown out in a heartbeat. Pinch to zoom... Now we have an issue.

    At the bare minimum, the case should have been subdivided into separate issues to be found before the court.

    The jury was merely confronted and overwhelmed by the enormity of the task. Given the change in the social environment, oversimplification and abstraction is almost a survival skill in today's world of data. You either over think it and sink, or abstract and swim.

    This needs a HUGE LOAD of STEAMING MISTRIAL!!!!
    I'd lay it at the feet of the Judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    techinabox (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re: The Jury

    There is no way you are going to find someone who isn't biased for or against Apple. When Steve Jobs died the news treated it like the death of Jesus and jurors will think anything but an Apple victory would be an affront to that man's life. Apple could sue Microsoft over the tablet Bill showed in 2002 and win.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Misconduct?

    "The Judge should have done HER job of winnowing away the unimportant details"

    FTFY - Judge Lucy Koh ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Zimzat (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Is each corporation going to be represented on the jury by its board members, by their CEOs, or will verdicts be decided by popular vote of employees?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If there were no android devices, I would just switch back to a dumb phone. Micrsoft isn't much better than Apple, and BB isn't even on my radar. I like my android devices, but in the grand scheme of things, smartphones and tablets are woefully unimportant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Jury of peers?

    Put a bunch of Techs in the same room and ask them to come up with one answer to a complex problem?
    Might as well have Sheldon Cooper as the jury foreman.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If there were no android devices, I would just switch back to a dumb phone. Micrsoft isn't much better than Apple, and BB isn't even on my radar. I like my android devices, but in the grand scheme of things, smartphones and tablets are woefully unimportant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    From Wikipedia:

    Under American jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into two types.
    Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
    Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.
    Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
    Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
    In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
    The United States Marshals Service is the agency component that first holds all federal prisoners. It uses the Prisoner Population Management System /Prisoner Tracking System. The only types of records that are disclosed as being in the system are those of "federal prisoners who are in custody pending criminal proceedings." The records of "alleged civil contempors" are not listed in the Federal Register as being in the system leading to a potential claim for damages under The Privacy Act, 5 USC section 552a (e)(4)(I).[10][11]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The result will likely be an increase in costs to Android users because of licensing fees to Apple. This will drive many Android consumers over to Apple."


    Because Apple devices are sooo much cheaper than any other competitor, and it will only take a few dollars more on Android to tip the balance, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Maybe you missed it....

    "Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his. "

    He owned patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953

    The point is he swayed the jury and that in of itself is not at all legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Divide by Zero (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

    Re: Re: Jury of peers?

    I'm all for it, as long as it comes to that last option. I'll put a hundy on Zuckerfuck hitting the floor first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: The Jury

    This is why it seems more of a Samsung defence team failure. Apple managed to have a Google engineer taken out of the initial jury selection...

    Why couldn't they do their research? Why did they present evidence late? They just seemed a tad naive the whole way through this process.

    Arguably, there's one thing that Samsung wasn't able to copy... Apple's persuasive lawyers

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    You probably should take the time to read the OP before coming off as somewhat snarky.

    Maybe you missed it...

    "Any links proving his patent was licensed to Apple?"

    ANY LINKS PROVING HIS PATENT WAS LICENSED TO APPLE?

    As in, any proof that Velvin Hogan's patent was licensed to Apple. I could make it clear enough so a box of rock could understand it, if you'd like. : )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    So - you are just making shit up then?

    Velvin Hogan was the Jury Foreman and he held a certain patent he liscensed to Apple. He swayed the jury to not consider prior art when they were explicitly ordered to.

    Motive:
    If this patent to Apple had gotten nullified, Apple could get their money back from him if they chose to sue him.


    Emphasis added.

    Seven years working with lawyers on his own patent does NOT affiliate him with Apple!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    LOL.. thanks - you cleared that just nicely!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So if I'm reading that right, he would indeed fall under the 'indirect contempt' part, and given that he not only failed to follow the judges orders, but led the other jurors to do so as well, apparently due to having a personal reason to Not find in favor of Samsung here... I am really hoping this guy sees some jail time for his self-serving abuse of the justice system here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Dave Xanatos, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Prior art.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    Torinir (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: The Jury

    Each side is limited in the number of jurors they can remove from the pool without cause. A juror owning a patent wouldn't have been an issue that would cause suspicions of prejudice at voir dire, since both sides had patents on the table in this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Starke (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:00pm

    Re: Isn't this...

    I'm pretty sure that's Jury Misconduct, tampering is when it's someone who's not on the jury who's trying to influence it. When it's a jury member, it's misconduct... it might also be a contempt charge, but I'm not a lawyer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    You're welcome. I've no problem with anyone making comments. But I pay attention to some, and Wally has a habit of coming off as a bit condescending. Especially when warning the trolls, "I'm giving you an out... etc etc etc". But he has a problem when it comes to Apple if you pay attention. Say an ill word, or question something, and it's like the reading comprehension part of his brain just fails completely and he gets snarky. Usually backfires in that at that point it's much easier to prove him wrong and throw some snark right back at him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Starke (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re:

    I may be an idiot, but I'm genuinely not seeing where he enriched himself from the ruling. I suppose if the Jury came back and said "there's no such thing as prior art" then, yes. I get where he might have perceived this as personal gain, but, like I said... how is he enriching himself off an unrelated patent case?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Starke (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm kinda duplicating another post elsewhere, but, from what little I know of California state law, it would be Jury Misconduct...

    With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.

    Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).

    I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Starke (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Yeah, the sad truth is, if the jury had actually been careful, not raced through the forms, not awarded damages for things they judged non-infringing, and then finally didn't open their mouths about why they did what they did, we wouldn't be talking about any of this now... :\

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    Starke (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:28pm

    Re:

    Last I heard he was in a good mood, yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...

    Nobody ever takes my wagers. Why? It's not illegal to make a friendly wager ... in most states...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 6:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    His patent is for my PC with a TV tuner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 7:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought so too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 7:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Ok, I accept that. Rabbit80. I'm sorry I've come off as snarky towards you. You made it easier for me to understand honestly :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Anyone want to place bets it has more to do with the Motorola Mobilty patents?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 7:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    "Say an ill word, or question something, and it's like the reading comprehension part of his brain just fails completely and he gets snarky."

    How would you react if someone said an ill word towards you?

    And how do I know that you're not one of the AC trolls? I'm sure you could tell Rabbit80 about those, or how many comments of yours have been marked as innapropriate as the past....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:10pm

    Re: Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...

    Why would I take your wager when I know betting aginst you would be a sure loss? :)

    I've been reading Grokster today in between court sessions and shown a fair few solicitors here.. Their first thought and exclamation was basically the same as mine.

    WTF!!! sheeeeeeeeiiiiiittttttttt!!! (or words to that effect depending on the decorum needed)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I liken it to the time vortex from Doctor Who.

    For that Image that will stay with me now forever I have a Dalek here who would like to meet you. Don't be alarmed if it yells EXTERMINATE, it will only be a quick sharp pain at first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    Correct for number 1.. Absolutely wrong for number 2

    Jury Nullification favours what the body of peers (the Jury) considers to be the correct form of justice at the time whether that is based on statute law or what they ethically believe. In other words it favours the Community at large.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    MadderMak (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Groklaw has compiled a list

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    MadderMak (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: The Jury

    "Why couldn't they do their research? Why did they present evidence late? They just seemed a tad naive the whole way through this process."

    Good question - check out the writeup at Groklaw regarding Judicial... um.... inconsistencies in motion rulings.

    I am certain a lot of it will come up on appeal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    MadderMak (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 9:05pm

    Juror Comments (Legally) Meanigless?

    I remember reading something on a paralegal site about there being an actual law against anything a Juror says after the verdict and decision being legally inadmissible as grounds for appeal/mistrial etc...??

    Anyone have anything on that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:03pm

    Re: What's so surprising?

    Plus, it is an American company (the much-loved Apple) versus a Korean company (those durn furriners, Samsung). The poor inventors, being ripped off by those devious orientals. Punish them! The verdict was inevitable. Bias much?

    Ah, Murrican justice, best in the world!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    No problem - I have thick skin :)

    If only it were true though - If the foreman had been receiving money from Apple, it would have been great ammo for Samsung!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:37pm

    Re: Re: Jury of peers?

    "end up killing one another"

    And Jobs has preemptively died first. He's the first! He's always first! Apple always invents just everything first, even when somebody else has demonstrated it before Apple invented it. They should get all the patents and they should win all their cases!

    **Fanboi rant mode off**

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:55pm

    Re: Re: Agreed re: juries

    People can understand 'complex cases' unless they are slavering imbeciles.

    The problem more comes with that the juries are being paid very little compared to their regular jobs most times and therefore are out to move the case from beginning to end as fast as possible.

    That does not lean towards a jury doing their 'due diligence' in the slightest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Croos, Aug 28th, 2012 @ 12:30am

    Re: Re:

    Jobbs can always come back again like he always did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Pete Austin, Aug 28th, 2012 @ 1:58am

    Jury Foreman's Patent

    The Appsung jury foreman's own patent http://1.usa.gov/SKBpwX is interesting. He seems to have basically patented Sky+ (launched in September 2001 in the UK) in 2002. Could this be an indication of his views about whether prior art should invalidate patents?

    I got the patent URL from: https://twitter.com/rakeshlobster/status/240301378663231488

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    icon
    PCCare247 (profile), Aug 28th, 2012 @ 3:17am

    Battle between Apple and Samsung

    The battle begins between Apple and Samsung. Samsung is going to be a King in the tech arena soon..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    sam illyn, Aug 28th, 2012 @ 6:17am

    Greedy americans

    The United States is full of greedy fat people. Who's stupid idea was it to get a jury to decide on a complicated patent case? A jury made up of fat ugly people that drink lots of soda and eat snacks 24/7 like their other obese American brothers and sisters. May God comprehensively destroy the United States.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Aug 28th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because his patents are as vague and obvious as Apple's disputed patents. Siding with Apple strengthens the validity of his patents through precedent.

    When interviewed, one of the jurors admitted that they ignored prior art completely on the foreman's advice because it was just easier than deliberating over those details. The foreman even admits he put himself in Apple's shoes to make a determination, which is strictly forbidden by the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Belstain (profile), Aug 28th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Contempt

    Perhaps the jury needs to be held responsible for some small portion of the damages they negligently awarded to Apple. I think 1% might drive the message home while still being fair.

    What's that? They can't come up with 1% of the award? Come on, it's barely over $10,000,000.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 28th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thank you :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 28th, 2012 @ 2:51pm

    Re: What's so surprising?

    Is this a joke?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Aug 28th, 2012 @ 4:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Jury

    Thanks for enlightening me. I hadn't read all the articles on Groklaw but when I delved a bit deeper it seems that there has been an element of foul play towards Samsungs legal team.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Aug 31st, 2012 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Hence the "No Golden Rule Argument" Rule ...

    I suppose that was a sucker bet...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    icon
    K-2 (profile), Sep 1st, 2012 @ 11:56am

    out of curiosity...

    What prior art are they referring to in relation to the 'bounce-back' patent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2012 @ 6:24pm

    Re: Re: What's so surprising?

    Well, the verdict is. The comment, not so much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2012 @ 11:01am

    Re: Agreed re: juries

    Can i just edit that a bit...

    It also raises questions, yet again, about why we allow patent trials. This has been a big problem for a long time and the results here only serve to emphasize that fact."

    There we go, much better.

    the world would be a happier place with poorer lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This