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."
Unfortunately, they're hard to find. There's a piece here and there, but no really good source that's been consistent. Maybe this trial was just too polarizing.
So you got nothing, except an excuse to smear groklaw. You smell quite shilly.
From what I've gathered, his interests are pretty much the same as Apple's: defending patents that are pretty obvious and have quite a bit of prior art.
How does the judicial system compensate for a jury foreman aggressively promoting himself as a de facto expert witness?
Groklaw consistantly sides with the law, and with common sense. I go to groklaw.net to cut through all of the bias and sensationalism of the mainstream press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-s-1-billion-verdict-may-lead-to-samsung-sales-ban.html
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19377261
Now that's bias!
>What is this world coming to when we want to "invalidate" the findings of a jury? What is the purpose of law and trials and jury if we're just going to "overturn" any ruling that is unpopular?
When the jury boasts that it reached it's verdict without considering all of that pesky boring evidence, what indeed is the purpose of jury trials?
With hindsight, perhaps, but Samsung's legal team had their chance to evict him from the jury back in July when the jury was selected, so either they missed the chance or decided that there was a greater risk of pro-Apple bias from another juror and evicted someone else instead. From what I recall of the process there were a lot of potential jurors with a potential bias towards Apple (knowing Apple employees, owning Apple hardware, etc.) and Samsung couldn't get rid of them all, just as Apple couldn't get rid of the jurors that has similar potential bias towards Android/Samsung. I think it more likely that Samsung's legal team thought that as an electrical engineer and patent holder he might have a better grasp of their case and gambled that he might tip the balance more in their favour than in Apples'. If so it was a bad call, that's all.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
At least the OP is schooled in math. Are you claiming that Samsung has only been selling smartphones and tablets for 3 months? Fact is, they've been selling Android smartphones since 2010, and only 2 years (8 quarters) of sales would constitute 160 million devices, using the low end of his claimed numbers. That's well below $10 per device.
Now, I don't know where he got those number, maybe they're worldwide and should be adjusted for just US sales, or adjusted just to the specific devices at issue, or adjusted for ramping sales, etc. But you said nothing to refute the numbers he gave.
$10 per device might be a reasonable for licensing an OS, or a large block of necessary patents. But that's not the case here. The two utility patents were for "pinch to zoom" and "bounce back" windows, neither of which is essential to core functionality. Additionally, it appears that the jury simply skipped over considering prior art, and that perhaps the patents should have been invalidated.
For example, the '915 patent covered "pinch to zoom," for which prior art was clearly demonstrated.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"PJ has been extremely anti-Apple and pro-Samsung in this case."
I don't believe that is true in any way. Groklaw has simply followed the law and the merits without regard to the parties. That her analysis ends up supporting Samsung's case doesn't mean she's "pro-Samsung."
One need only look at how she's covered Oracle cases to see that - Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle's the good guy; Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's the bad guy.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No. He invented TiVo (with some very obvious additions), three years after it started shipping.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Apple laid claim to ideas in the commons. They have stolen from us all.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Laying liability onto a fictional construct does not require granting personhood. Its a compeltely stupid concept that attempts to create a new class of citizen.
Good-bye
I know it sounds maudlin, but it really did hurt to see PJ now doing, without realizing it, what Darl/Enderle/Didio/Florian did so many times in the past--I just couldn't stand to continue.
Nah, it just sounds looney because what you say is happening is not happening.
-- $G
So you grab random 20 people off the street. Throw out the 10 that seem most intelligent. And then then expect the 10 left over to figure out the cost of damages in a complex (and vague) economic situation. How is that working out?
You're misinformed on that issue. The reason for voir dire is to remove people who aren't likely to be able to set aside their prior opinions or whom have a stake in the outcome. What they did here was a violation of their oath as jurors. They are given the law and the interpretation of the law that they are to use. They then decide whether or not the plaintiff met the bar under the rules that they were given.
Now if the judge gave improper directions to the jury, then that's one thing, but this sounds like a willful violation of their duty. Expect this verdict to be vacated and for the case to probably be settled otherwise go back to court for a proper trial.
The rules are the rules for these things and if the jury does something like this it becomes impossible for the parties to receive a fair hearing.
BTW, this is why I have never talked about what happened during the deliberations for the trial I was on, no matter what you say there's the possibility of giving the idea that the verdict wasn't fair. I didn't agree with one large aspect of the verdict, but I stand by the rest.
You're a lawyer and you think there was jury tampering here? Come on. You're either not really a lawyer or you recently got hit in the head. Jury tampering is a criminal act. Who is the culprit? How was it done? Do tell.
Copying from one great artist is stealing. Copying three or more is research. And that's OK.
But lay claim to the commons and you steal from all. It is to say "Not only do I stand on the shoulders of giants - but noone else may."
To claw back from the public domain works owned by the public, or extend temporary rights indefinitely is the same. It is unjust. It is a violation of the social contract. We will not honor the law when it is so unjust. The attempt erodes the rule and force of law, and steals from the commons again the order and comfort general respect for the law provides.
Help stamp out iliturcy.