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."
and the rest of the jury just followed along like lemmings. The foreman fancied himself an expert on patents, what with his vast experience of having secured 1 patent
What a disgrace. Unfortunately rule 606(b) of the Federal evidence code precludes using the jurors' statements in an appeal. So they can prance and prattle like jackasses, but there's not much to do about it
Did the juror text this info to the reporter with "send from my iPhone" at the bottom?
He's an electrical engineer. Here's his patent at the USPTO.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
>Since the site is fairly anti-apple,
PJ was pretty much rabidly pro-Apple in her assessment of Apple vs. Psystar. So much so you got called a troll if you didn't agree.
So i'd say that your assessment of Groklaw is wrong.
--
BMO
Groklaw might be emotionally committed sometimes, but they are still emphasising facts, bring fact-corrections when they are wrong, and digs into actual legal document like no other journalists does, as long as they keep doing that they will continue to be a source of superior journalism on tech court cases.
It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.
You could try actually reading his post before jumping on his math he said per QUARTER. How long ago did the galaxy come out. I can tell you it was many QUARTERS ago they have probably sold well over 100million phones since they started "infringing" these patents which is why he said "less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less" because he was implying an unknown multiplier based on length of time this has been going on. So yes they have come out way on top. Not to mention they will probably win in appeal.
Samsung's lawyers failed to do their job when he was selected as a juror.
Corporations being "persons" is a 500 - 600 year old doctrine of law. Back to the Maritime and before to about the time North America was even discovered. Investors stopped financing trade voyages because they would be 100% liable if the ship went down. They many times lost their homes, money and land to pay the families of those lost on the ship. The Corporation simply created a legal "person" to take on that liability and limit the investors losses to the amount they invest.
It was nothing new created by the Supreme Court. Corporations are made of people. Yes they can be killed (aka Dissolved) and individuals within it can be personally liable for their actions.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyrkett/4368260369/
2002
Sounds like the USPO.
If the jurors had read the courts instructions (which the foreman claimed they didn't need to) then it was about "damages". The court instructions made that clear "You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." The foreman told a court official that the verdict was arrived at without needing the court's instructions. However, the foreman had this to say after the trial "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist... We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable." So I totally agree with you when you say this was about damages and not penalties from the judge's perspective. I would say that wasn't the case from the juries perspective. To me Hogan's statement suggests that the award itself WAS punishment. I don't know how else to read his comment.