[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

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.

Actually, yes they can reject a juror for any reason they want and they aren't required to disclose that reason either (well they aren't allowed to exclude jurors based on race or a few other special factors)...

Even for the protected case, like race, it is hard to know if that is the reason the juror was sacked since the attorney doesn't have to give ANY reason whatsoever for dismissing the juror. So, Samsung lawyers could have asked potential jurors if they already had a patent and dumped them for that reason, if they wanted to.

No, they aren't allowed to dump ever juror or, as you said, they would be going in circles forever. The limit is usually like 6 or so (depends on the jurisdiction) that they are allowed to summarily reject using Peremptory Challenges.

That being said, him being on the jury is apart of our system. He was able to bring some insight of the patent system to the table and there were jurors also without that same insight...

[Praetor]

[Praetor]

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

if that is true than Samsung must fire it's law firm because that would be utter important. not to mention all the flaws in the jury's verdict.

[Boz]

That being said, him being on the jury is apart of our system. He was able to bring some insight of the patent system to the table and there were jurors also without that same insight...

Or he could have simply lied or not disclosed what his background truly was or what patents he had because he wanted to defend his own patents?

This is just getting better and better

Juror in Apple-Samsung Suit May Have Owned Patent Used by Apple

http://www.androidpit.com/what-juror-in-apple-samsung-suit-may-have-owned-patent-used-by-apple

[Brandon H Supervisor]

this case is losing more and more credit :laugh:

[evo_spook]

Stop twisting things as always Boz, I've read your links and its really BS, they've made a wild biased statement with no actual facts to back it up.

[redvamp128]

What I find funny is Samsung did not even bring this into the trial--

Note the round corners- Icons in a grid-- When you look at Explorer.... then there is the grab and scroll

[ichi]

An Interview with the jury foreman has been published, and apparently it gives away how they royally screwed up when deciding if Apple patents were valid.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

Long story short: the foreman thinks that Apple patents aren't invalidated by the prior art because Apple software doesn't run on the platforms were the prior art did.

I'd think that instead of making up stuff he could just have read the jury instruction, which says nothing about anything running anywhere and considers even stuff written on plain paper as prior art.

[redvamp128]

Long story short: the foreman thinks that Apple patents aren't invalidated by the prior art because Apple software doesn't run on the platforms were the prior art did.

(does this guy really understand the words that were coming out of his mouth) {This is just based on what he has already said}

HUH??? If that is the case then --- (hate to use a Johnny C.) then you must acquit.... because Samsung Does not run on IOS and therefore that makes the verdict they stated invalid.

If that is the case then Samsung did not Copy Apple or go against their patent-- (stay with me here--- this guy really should have just stayed silent--)

The reason by what he said is so is because it runs on Android and not IOS. What he said basically is Apple Patents are only valid on Apple products because they can not run on Android...also what he also does not understand is that some of those prior art have patents as well.

The same can be said true based on what he said about Android then -- it is not the same platform ---. Android does not run on an Iphone.... so it is not the same....

Right>?? This guy is looking for his 15 minutes and it is about up.....and he may be giving just cause for a mistrial and not realize it.

[grik]

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

[FloatingFatMan]

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

So I guess it's just pure coincidence that their tabs look just like their 2006 digital picture frames, and their phones look very similar to 2006 phones?

[techbeck]

Did Apple Just Help Samsung Sell A Ton Of Smartphones?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2012/08/28/did-apple-just-help-samsung-sell-a-ton-of-smartphones/

[redvamp128]

Everyone is sure that Samsung copied of course, the before 2007 and after 2007 models of Samsung prove this clearly, but some think its alright to do it, consumers have more options at lower prices and they show other copied examples not trialed.

1 Bn$ is very inexpensive for Samsung, they profit alot more selling parts to Apple.

Get over this fanboys, its just 2 companies battling for what they created and profited.

Wrong---actually they copied -- LG--

Prada was shown way before the Iphone was announced and would explain the design change...that Samsung did

but guess what -- this was not allowed to be shown due to the fact that Apple was not Suing LG and LG was not on trial--

LG paper work for the LG KE850 filed with the FCC on May 2006

Which is well before Apple even filed with the FCC in Oct.2006.

[redvamp128]

On a final note-- though this topic will most likely get sidelined for other news--

Here is a patent from 1993 that just so happened to run out right before Apple Filed theirs...

http://www.google.com/patents/USD337569

One may want to pay close attention to the drawings and -- pre-dated any evidence Apple Presented...

though instead of a cell phone they said an "touch screen notebook"

Note the bezel / round corners - size and dimensions.

[Growled Member]

Everyone copies. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time seeing that.

[techbeck]

Everyone copies. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time seeing that.

Exactly and what I have been saying for a while now. Anyone who thinks otherwise are hypocrites.

[FloatingFatMan]

Exactly and what I have been saying for a while now. Anyone who thinks otherwise are hypocrites.

That would be Apple, then. :p

[Astra.Xtreme]

That would be Apple, then. :p

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

[FloatingFatMan]

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

Yes, really. Many of the patents that Apple have are based on technology and concepts copied from other products. This is what prior art is.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Yes, really. Many of the patents that Apple have are based on technology and concepts copied from other products. This is what prior art is.

There's nothing stopping the owners of the prior art to step up and invalidate Apple's patents. It's their loss if they don't.

[techbeck]

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

Still stealing no matter how you look at it.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Still stealing no matter how you look at it.

That's your opinion. Just because somebody can dig up prior art, doesn't mean the design was stolen.

Anybody can draw a picture, seal it in an postmarked envelope, and store it in a drawer for 100 years. People do it all the time.

If somebody has prior art and doesn't do anything with it, then there's obviously a reason. There's too much money on the line for somebody to not care.

[techbeck]

That's your opinion. Just because somebody can dig up prior art, doesn't mean the design was stolen.

Anybody can draw a picture, seal it in an postmarked envelope, and store it in a drawer for 100 years. People do it all the time.

If somebody has prior art and doesn't do anything with it, then there's obviously a reason. There's too much money on the line for somebody to not care.

I am not just talking about this case. Ideas are taken/stolen/borrowed/used...however you want to call it...all the time and even by Apple.

[Praetor]

Not really. There's a difference between copying and stealing a patented design.

so Apple steeled copyed got inspired by a design and that's ok but others can't? even worse, patented that design and got away with that so it could protect their copying inspiration? see the flaw in this? see why so many are angry with this attitude? how, in the world, an organization could patent that stuff, go to court and still manage to win, in-spite so many evidence against it? patent slide to unlock? patent a square with round corners? it's ridiculous.

[javagreen]

www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3284223/apple-accuses-four-more-samsung-devices-infringement

:rolleyes: