[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.

[Prosidius]

I can practically guarantee that if it was the other way around, that there were suspicions of the jury being rigged in favor of Samsung that Apple haters would call the jury fair and there was nothing wrong with it. Samsung could have filed a complained about the jury when jurors were being picked out. They settled with the current jury so they have nothing to complain about.

The jury was 100% fair anyway, they didn't award Apple even half of what they wanted (2.5 billion). Samsung violated some of Apple's patents, that just the truth of it. The evidence is right in front your face. Whether you believe so or not you cant possibly tell me Samsung is 100% innocent here.

[ichi]

I can practically guarantee that if it was the other way around, that there were suspicions of the jury being rigged in favor of Samsung that Apple haters would call the jury fair and there was nothing wrong with it. Samsung could have filed a complained about the jury when jurors were being picked out. They settled with the current jury so they have nothing to complain about.

The jury was 100% fair anyway, they didn't award Apple even half of what they wanted (2.5 billion). Samsung violated some of Apple's patents, that just the truth of it. The evidence is right in front your face. Whether you believe so or not you cant possibly tell me Samsung is 100% innocent here.

It's not about suspicions of rigging, it's about reports on inconsistencies, conflict of insterests and duty shirking, all of those based not on wild assumptions from a verdict you don't agree with but on factual errors and the comments by the very members of the jury.

Samsung being guilty wouldn't change that the trial was, from the look of all the issues raised, flawed.

[Boz]

Selective quoting the biased stuff that doesn't make sense while completely ignoring every other single point that does, right? ;)

If you wan't to avoid Boz's bias you can go straight here, read the trial issues and discuss.

I was JUST about to post that link man...

[Boz]

Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple....

The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

"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 the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, 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, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. "

Wow.. just wow... they skipped prior art arguments cause it was "bogging them down" and then when they decided after the first day Apple won they just went through devices and checkmarked them as they were "all the same". Wow..

Clearly this phone totally infringes on Apple. This is one of many the jury just checkmarked off and gave it to Apple..

[Shane Nokes]

Indeed...saying they used if the item had a bezel and screen to be the deciding factor is troublesome.

Heck my Dell monitor that came with my Dell PC has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a screen, and a bezel...oh crap...

Also finding out that the foreman is a 'junk' patent holder who instructed the jury to ignore the instructions and to skip questions of prior art based on his supposed legal knowledge is very troublesome.

[evo_spook]

Apple really needs to stop this anti-competitive strong arming, unfortunately people are too stupid to NOT buy from Apple, when their products are ****, their business practices are ****, and they overcharge for their ****.

you do realise motorala sued first?

oh no you probs dont in a flood of fanboyishm

[grayscale]

Apple really needs to stop this anti-competitive strong arming, unfortunately people are too stupid to NOT buy from Apple, when their products are ****, their business practices are ****, and they overcharge for their ****.

Blind hatred is just as stupid as blind love. While there are people who buy Apple products just for the name, there are many who actually use it because they find it better whether you like it or not.

[ichi]

you do realise motorala sued first?

oh no you probs dont in a flood of fanboyishm

Apple sued HTC before they were sued by Motorola.

[Shane Nokes]

All the tech companies sue each other...we understand. The point at hand is this particular case. There's some oddities about the jury now that they are talking openly about the verdict. Things aren't adding up...

[techbeck]

Wow.. just wow... they skipped prior art arguments cause it was "bogging them down" and then when they decided after the first day Apple won they just went through devices and checkmarked them as they were "all the same". Wow..

If that really is the case, then that should be enough for at least someone looking in to the jury/decision. Prior art is a biggie when it comes to patents.

But either way, Samsung will rebound and continue to do well...and if not, then someone else will step up and claim the title as the #1 android maker. It was HTC first, then Samsung and who knows who else.

Clearly this phone totally infringes on Apple. This is one of many the jury just checkmarked off and gave it to Apple..

To be fare, there are a lot of other things that were sued over besides just the physical look of the phone...and what you cannot see in the pic you posted.

[redvamp128]

Indeed...saying they used if the item had a bezel and screen to be the deciding factor is troublesome.

Heck my Dell monitor that came with my Dell PC has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a screen, and a bezel...oh crap...

Also finding out that the foreman is a 'junk' patent holder who instructed the jury to ignore the instructions and to skip questions of prior art based on his supposed legal knowledge is very troublesome.

Guess this infringes -- right-- based on the check marks then- and this is a slate tablet (also the screen worked without the pen too)

Round corners-- and Grey bezel

No wait that can't-- be--

This came out about 5 years before the Ipad and about 2 years before the iPhone was even shown to the public. It was demoed middle of the year 2005 and the first production went out in late 2006.

What I find troubling even more-- is that the judge didn't ask to get reassigned.... there in itself is something Samsung should request a mistrial on.

The judge worked on patents for a Law Firm that was employed by Apple and her company filed applied and received same said patents for Apple.

In other words.... she in essence worked (even if not now) for the Prosecution.

That is what I find troubling in the most.....That for me does not even go into the Jury in itself..

That would be like a guy on trial for murder and the judge is related to the prosecuting attorney

[guru]

meanwhile in Australia http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/08/24/samsung-opens-apple-store-clone-in-australia/

[Tech085]

I glad Apple won the case and Samung have to pay Apple 1 billion in damage, Apple is my most Favorite Company I just <3 Apple.

[Matthew_Thepc]

The judge worked on patents for a Law Firm that was employed by Apple and her company filed applied and received same said patents for Apple.

wow, surprised no one caught that O.O

source?

I glad Apple won the case and Samung have to pay Apple 1 billion in damage, Apple is my most Favorite Company I just <3 Apple.

/s?

[redvamp128]

wow, surprised no one caught that O.O

source?

You might say these lawyers can get downright technical. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR) is one of the largest law firms in the US specializing in representing high-tech corporations. Its client roster has included several big Silicon Valley names, such as Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun Microsystems. WSGR has advised hundreds of clients on their IPOs and has been involved in more than 700 merger and acquisition transactions (valued at more than $300 billion) in the last five years. The firm has hundreds of lawyers working across seven offices in the US and one in Shanghai. It was founded in 1961.

Read more: http://www.answers.c...i#ixzz24iNZA9Xg

From 2000 until 2002, she worked as a Senior Associate at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a Palo Alto, California law firm.

/s? They also deal in intellectual property patents as well

Then she also worked for McDermott Will & Emery which also did patents for Apple.

And no one has pieced that together.

Oh and here is a flash from the past...

Vector Icon set from 2004 that was available for download for Corel Draw and the icons can be reversed as well

[Prosidius]

They didn't skip prior art. They skipped one patent because it was bogging them down and went through the patents they were sure of.

[redvamp128]

Oh and the settings came from KDE -- I leave you with this proof... In linux there has been a cog with square teeth and not triangle teeth prior to the Iphone-Ipad-OSX this example came out in 2000

Which I guess the Jury never saw this as well.

Oh Apple I am afraid that KDE wants you to stop using the Cog in your Icons- (lol but that would be weird if it were true)

[FloatingFatMan]

They didn't skip prior art. They skipped one patent because it was bogging them down and went through the patents they were sure of.

They shouldn't have skipped anything, period.

[sanctified Veteran]

listen.. I'm 36 (you are younger judging from your profile so it's ironic you teaching me anything)

And this is why your posts and your personality is a joke: You actually believe you cant learn from someone younger. Talk about arrogance.

[TheLegendOfMart]

meanwhile in Australia http://www.gottabemo...e-in-australia/

They don't even look remotely alike, does Apple have a patent on using tables to display products now?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Wow.. just wow... they skipped prior art arguments cause it was "bogging them down" and then when they decided after the first day Apple won they just went through devices and checkmarked them as they were "all the same". Wow..

Clearly this phone totally infringes on Apple. This is one of many the jury just checkmarked off and gave it to Apple..

Why is any of what you posted shocking to you? The Jury is made up of everyday people who aren't lawyers, geeks, or patent experts. They will rule in the best manner they can using their own diverse backgrounds to draw on while making that decision. Having a juror who had patents helped them be capable of digesting some parts and sounds like more of an asset than a hindrance (as without it they would understand the patents even less...).

Samsung had a chance to reject jurors it saw as unfit before the trial...

The jury system has its flaws, but it is our system for a reason.

[Tech085]

The samsung Tables in Australia are hotter then the Apple Tables setup.

[ichi]

Having a juror who had patents helped them be capable of digesting some parts and sounds like more of an asset than a hindrance (as without it they would understand the patents even less...).

That guy apparently had a personal interest in defending the validity of Apple patents, since he had "reinvented" and patented Tivo himself.

As he explained after the trial:

?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.?

By defending Apple's patents he was intending to set a precedent just in case he ever had to defend his own patent.

Conflict of interests much?

Samsung had a chance to reject jurors it saw as unfit before the trial...

I don't know how that works exactly but I'd guess you can't just reject every juror you don't like, else both parties would never reach an agreement about the jury members. Maybe there were other candidates that could be more likely to side with Apple.

Also Samsung's lawyers made quite a few mistakes (like being late submiting evidences). Not foreseeing that Vervin Hogan's vested interest could drive jury's approach to the validity of patents (along with the fact that he was the only juror that had some expertise about patents and hence his opinion could likely prevail) might have been one of them.

[.Neo]

listen.. I'm 36 (you are younger judging from your profile so it's ironic you teaching me anything).

From the way you post I wouldn't have given you a day over 16.

[Mr. Gibs]

You might say these lawyers can get downright technical. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR) is one of the largest law firms in the US specializing in representing high-tech corporations. Its client roster has included several big Silicon Valley names, such as Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun Microsystems. WSGR has advised hundreds of clients on their IPOs and has been involved in more than 700 merger and acquisition transactions (valued at more than $300 billion) in the last five years. The firm has hundreds of lawyers working across seven offices in the US and one in Shanghai. It was founded in 1961.

Read more: http://www.answers.c...i#ixzz24iNZA9Xg

From 2000 until 2002, she worked as a Senior Associate at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a Palo Alto, California law firm.

/s? They also deal in intellectual property patents as well

Then she also worked for McDermott Will & Emery which also did patents for Apple.

And no one has pieced that together.

Oh and here is a flash from the past...

Vector Icon set from 2004 that was available for download for Corel Draw and the icons can be reversed as well

So? Just because you work for a major law firm that had Apple as a client doesn't mean you worked with Apple. She could have just as easily been with the law firm's other clients. Hell both the PS3 and Xbox processors were designed at IBM, in the same building by two different teams that had no idea what the other was doing.

You work at a big and successful enough law firm, guess what's going to happen? Big and successful companies are going to want you to represent them. And WSGR's client / attorney list is huge.