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.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: apple, samsung

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

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

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
140 Comments
GMacGuffin says:

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.

G Thompson (profile) says:

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? ๐Ÿ™‚

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)

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Yakko Warner (profile) says:

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?

Michael Long (profile) says:

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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: 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]

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Starke (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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!

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

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).

SpencerMatthewp says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

SpencerMatthewp says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

SpencerMatthewp says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Simple Mind (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

Josh (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Simple Mind (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

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?

Wally (profile) says:

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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Jury Nullification in action

Here’s your proof:

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-leaned-on-engineer-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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 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-after-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).

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 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. : )

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 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….

Rabbit80 says:

Re: Re: Re:7 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!

Doug Wheeler (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Tunnen (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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**

Anonymous Coward says:

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

” 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile) says:

Re: 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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

Wally (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

anon says:

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.

Michael Long (profile) says:

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.

nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile) says:

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

Mak says:

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.

Medbob (profile) says:

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.

Pete Austin says:

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

Greevar (profile) says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...