[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.

[FloatingFatMan]

Even Samsungs own lawyers couldn't tell the devices apart. I guess that was Apples Lawyers fault too?

At 10 feet away, with all logo's covered, anyone would struggle to tell the difference. That's the point of the logo's.

[TheElite]

apple must have payed off Samsungs lawyers for making the same mistake earlier in the case then i guess ?

As FFM just pointed out, that was from 10 feet away, and just looking. Only a mentally handicapped person would pick it up and not be able to distinguish between a choice of only 2 phones.

[techbeck]

At 10 feet away, with all logo's covered, anyone would struggle to tell the difference. That's the point of the logo's.

Yup, the fact that Samsung devices say Samsung on the front of it and/or back, must confuse the Apple folks and many of the people who use them.

When I buy something, I always check it out and make sure it is what I wanted before I pay for it.

[Vice]

At 10 feet away, with all logo's covered, anyone would struggle to tell the difference. That's the point of the logo's.

I can tell a Nexus 7 from an iPad without needing to cover logos because they are very different looking. But the iPad and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 look almost completely identical. Which was just the way Samsung wanted it. You don't need to copy to compete as Google and Asus have clearly shown with the Nexus 7 or Amazon with the Kindle Fire.

[FloatingFatMan]

I can tell a Nexus 7 from an iPad without needing to cover logos because they are very different looking. But the iPad and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 look almost completely identical. Which was just the way Samsung wanted it. You don't need to copy to compete as Google and Asus have clearly shown with the Nexus 7 or Amazon with the Kindle Fire.

At 10 foot, if I put an iPad and a Samsung digital picture frame (released YEARS before the iPad) next to each other and covered the logo's, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[BoredBozirini]

At 10 foot, if I put an iPad and a Samsung digital picture frame (released YEARS before the iPad) next to each other and covered the logo's, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Of course I would, one is a picture frame and the other is a tablet.

[Prosidius]

He also pointed out that the jury didn't have a hometown bias in favor of Apple, saying that "we were going by the judges instructions on how we should go about it and we stuck to that. We weren't thinking Apple or Samsung." And while the deliberation was surprisingly short, Ilagan insists that the decision wasn't rushed. "We weren't impatient," he explained. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3267843/apple-vs-samsung-juror-speaks

Hopefully that hushes the haters who think the jury was rigged/paid by Apple.

[FloatingFatMan]

Of course I would, one is a picture frame and the other is a tablet.

Not if they were turned off you wouldn't. Not from the front.

[guru]

[/font][/color]

http://www.theverge....ng-juror-speaks

Hopefully that hushes the haters who think the jury was rigged/paid by Apple.

the court was 10miles of apple's campus.. atleast they didn't have trial inside the campus lol

j/king

[Boz]

[/font][/color]

http://www.theverge....ng-juror-speaks

Hopefully that hushes the haters who think the jury was rigged/paid by Apple.

This actually show right away that the jurors didn't even listen to evidence. They listened to this one guy and decided right away. Plus the jurors from California. This trial was far from fair or objective.

According to Ilagan, jury foreman Velvin Hogan helped make the decision process easier for the jury, imparting his wisdom as a patent owner. "After that it was easier."

Jury Foreman Velvin Hogan had some words of his own when speaking toReuters this morning. "We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property,"

You can't have important things like this that affect the whole patent system decided on by a bunch of idiots half of which don't even have a smartphone.

Btw, see what I highlighted, this jury foreman is the one who actually made decisions. The others looked at him as a "pro" considering he had prior "patent experience".. so basically he explained them what he thought was right and they voted that way. He likes being in the spotlight, that's pretty clear. And the "we didn't want to give carte blanche to a company" was clearly his stand and why Apple won everything and Samsung didn't win a thing.

FORTUNE -- One of the reasons -- perhaps the main reason -- the jury was able to deliver a verdict in Apple's (AAPL) landmark patent infringement suit against Samsung in less than three days was that it chose as its foreperson a 67-year-old retired engineer with two grown children, three civil cases under his belt, a 35-year career in hard-drive technology (Memorex, Storage Technology, Digital Equipment) and a U.S. patent in his name.

It was Velvin R. Hogan who signed the 20-page jury form and read the verdict aloud. And it was reportedly under his guidance that the jury worked through with the thorny issue of whether Apple's patents were valid.

So basically, this whole trial was decided by this one guy. Wow.

http://tech.fortune....an-of-the-jury/

[TheElite]

Damn Boz. Good find.

[ichi]

http://www.theverge....ng-juror-speaks

Hopefully that hushes the haters who think the jury was rigged/paid by Apple.

If they didn't rush the deliberation, how did they manage to goof?

In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, ¹ down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage

Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict: "The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions."

http://www.groklaw.n...012082510525390

[Boz]

This is a funny post on Google+..

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"

Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"

Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.

Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

I put my Samsung QX410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, "Sorry, you don't mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?"

"Oh, no worries, it was $700." I replied.

I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, "Mind if I have a look?" he asked.

So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X... By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

... Now, the punchline:

I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don't know the details, they don't really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple ... and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products -- for nearly everything.

Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)... Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.

[evo_spook]

You can't have important things like this that affect the whole patent system decided on by a bunch of idiots half of which don't even have a smartphone.

Out of order. Intelligence isn't decided by owning a smartphone, or even being able to operate a computer, its highly likely these jurors are more intelligent then most people on this thread, thats almost a definite looking at some of the replys.

[Prosidius]

If they didn't rush the deliberation, how did they manage to goof?

[/size][/font][/color]

http://www.groklaw.n...012082510525390

Mistakes happen, especially as the Jury had to go over dozens of phones. The difference was only $2 million which is a drop in the bucket for Samsung.

[Vice]

This is a funny post on Google+..

https://plus.google....sts/246srfbqg6G

Sounds made up.

[Growled Member]

So basically, this whole trial was decided by this one guy. Wow.

From what you posted, it seems that way. Sigh. So much for justice.

[ichi]

Mistakes happen, especially as the Jury had to go over dozens of phones. The difference was only $2 million which is a drop in the bucket for Samsung.

It's not just a matter of some extra millions:

If the jury instructions [PDF] are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?

And then (as clearly stated by the foreman) the jury didn't even bother reading the instructions. This is what he had to say about the fine:

"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."

Now check what's stated on the jury instructions that they didn't read:

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.

[Boz]

its highly likely these jurors are more intelligent then most people on this thread, thats almost a definite looking at some of the replys.

Read the article I posted earlier in this thread. And the fact they are in a jury doesn't make them intelligent at all. The fact they needed one guy who leaned Apple to make decisions for them says a lot. Plus, what intelligent person doesn't get out of jury duty?

I rest my case your honor.

[BoredBozirini]

So basically, this whole trial was decided by this one guy. Wow.

http://tech.fortune....an-of-the-jury/

No, the trial was decided by the jury. Try again.

[evo_spook]

Read the article I posted earlier in this thread. And the fact they are in a jury doesn't make them intelligent at all. The fact they needed one guy who leaned Apple to make decisions for them says a lot. Plus, what intelligent person doesn't get out of jury duty?

I rest my case your honor.

Deciding a case that you didn't like the final result off, doesn't lessen or mean anything about their intelligence, it just makes you look idiot for making such daft statements.

[Boz]

Deciding a case that you didn't like the final result off, doesn't lessen or mean anything about their intelligence, it just makes you look idiot for making such daft statements.

This is about a ruling that was influenced by a single juror. I don't see how you can't see a problem.

[evo_spook]

This is about a ruling that was influenced by a single juror. I don't see how you can't see a problem.

No different then any court case, they all discuss it till they come to a conclusion. They discussed.

You're bitter at the result and waving around trying to find something to gripe about.

[Vice]

This is about a ruling that was influenced by a single juror. I don't see how you can't see a problem.

The jury decided together. They were not there to decide the validity of the patents Apple held only if Samsung infringed upon the patents as written, which Samsung did. Apple had a patent for the list scrolling bounce back effect, Samsung included that feature in their phones after Apple had that patent thus they were in breach of that patent. Are you suggesting the only reason the jury found Samsung in breach of that patent was because of this one juror who holds a patent himself? It was a similar situation with the pinch to zoom functionality.

Then when it comes to the trade dress, the Jury's decision was that the Samsung S1 and a few other devices ripped off Apples trade dress just like those fake rolex watches rip off the real rolex designs. It was so similar it looked like a knock off and based on the documentation Samsung themselves presented which basically detailed every mm of an iPhone and how they needed to copy it in every way imaginable it showed they purposefully and willfully attempted to copy the iPhone which is why the damages the jury awarded were so high.

[Boz]

Great comment on Engadget:

I need to point out that people have spoken with jurors, and some damning facts were revealed.

First, the jury felt from day one that Samsung had harmed Apple, the debate amongst them from that point was how much to punish them. It was a partial, biased jury from the get-go.

Second, most of the jurors were unfamiliar with patent law... so they looked up to the jury foreman, who was a tech patent holder with a patent similar to Apple's. Thus, he had a vested interest in upholding Apple's patents, to create a precedent to protect his own patent if it ever came up in a court. He basically led the rest of the jury on it, which is why the jury disregarded the prior art.

Third, the jury all came from near Cupertino, a region which economy depends on Apple's success and in which Steve Jobs is bigger than Jesus.

If ever there was a case where a mistrial should be declared because of a biased jury (excluding the Jim Crow days in the South), this is it. The jury had made their minds before the trial began, the foreman had a clear conflict of interest and had authority on all others, etc...

Everything Samsung's lawyers said fell on deaf ears. The jury was rigged to begin with, they could not win this.

Here is a VERBATIM quote from the foreman:

"?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.?"

Can ANYONE deny that this juror had a clear conflict of interest?

Here is the link http://www.bloomberg...persuasive.html. And it is a conflict of interest, don't kid yourself. The guy admitted he made his mind by thinking about his patent and not about the case at hand. He wanted to uphold Apple's patents not because of their own merits, but because he wants to protect his own patent.

If he helped declare Apple's patent invalid here because of prior art, he would have created a precedent that could have hurt his own patent. That is a clear and definite conflict of interest. It is the very definition of a conflict of interest.

Here is a definition of conflict of interest: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest"

The primary interest here is serving as an impartial jury and rendering an objective and unbiased ruling. The secondary interest is the protection of this juror's own patent, which he ADMITS he understood to be equivalent to Apple's own patents involved in the case.

Let's hope Samsung lawyers use all these statements and subpoena all jury members to testify whether they were influenced by the foreman. This whole thing is turning out to be very ripe for a mistrial.