Slashdot Mirror
Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down"
eldavojohn writes "PJ over at Groklaw has consolidated some of the more interesting juror comments made following the landmark $1 billion settlement. Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material. Most sources are incredulous that all of the information was considered in the process. CNET quotes a juror as saying '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 so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.' While the fact that they they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity shows they were at least consistent, Groklaw is reporting on some odd inconsistencies in the aftermath of accounts from jurors. The appeal for something this huge goes without question but the accounts collected at Groklaw make this verdict and verdict process sound hasty, ambiguous and probably the result of one man's (the foreman's) personal opinion of patents."
Don't get your hopes. The Groklaw account differs from a lot of other sources. Since the site is fairly anti-apple, you might look for a more objective piece before relaxing.
Regardless of what you think, going back on all the other cases Groklaw has been following has made people like you put to shame.
Ah yes, and another low-skilled reader comes out of the woodwork! "People like me" who have agreed with Groklaw on every prior case, because they provided insightful and informative analysis? But who disagree on this one because they're now taking quotes out of context and twisting words to draw conclusions from them that are obviously wrong?
Being blatant is one thing but subtle bias can creep bye. I have no reason to assume anything about the judge; however, I will assume that judges are not above skewing things to their own beliefs. Including nationalism, or clever marketing such as the kind Apple uses to align themselves with the identity of cool, hip, "revolutionary", and innovative. (things Samsung has not done.)
It was a US judge that was convicting and sentencing teenagers to maximum prison sentences for things such as shop lifting a 50cent candy bar or getting into a fight in school. He had connections to the privatized prison in the area and I believe he was making money from putting children into the business. It went on for years and was amazingly blatant before he finally was caught and arrested. One should wonder how many others exist who are disciplined enough to show restraint. The Supreme Court made corporations into people in a case that didn't even try for it when any child knows the difference.
By that I mean, they are like slashdotters (kinda geeky). Especially the foreman (also, not mentioned, is the claim he was a juror on several civil trials previously and has a couple of kids).
(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee).
Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.
Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.
In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.
In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.
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.
Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years at companies including Memorex Corp., Colorado- based Storage Technology Corp. and Massachusetts-based Digital Equipment Corp.
“If there is one juror who seems more clearly knowledgeable than the others, the jury will often look to that person to help them work through the issues, and perhaps elect him foreman,” Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School Professor, said yesterday in an interview.
The jury in federal court in San Jose, California, also included a mechanical engineer, an aspiring software engineer and a woman who worked for National Semiconductor Corp. While the interests and professional backgrounds of those jurors reflect the Silicon Valley pool from which the panel was drawn, another juror works at a cycling shop and one panelist didn’t go to college and works in construction, according to court transcripts. Seven of the nine panelists said they had never served on a jury before.