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."
So what was this Foreman's patent in? Did he have some reason to want there to be stronger legal precedent for, software/design patents? Why did the other Jurors simply follow this mans lead? Was it group think, at its worst or were they just eager to get the hell home because the entire trial was boring and silly in their minds and the fastest way to get out of there was to slap down a billion dollar number and then call it a day?
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.
Doesn't this qualify as a mistrial? Was the material in the form of foreman's explanation vetted by the court? Is it admissible as expert testimony? As a guideline perhaps?
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
So the decision to exclude evidence (of Samsung's phones in development prior to the iPhone's release) based on a technicality did in fact influence the outcome. Who would've guessed.
As I said before the verdict, the whole purpose of having deadlines in a court case is so that the trial proceeds in a timely manner. Why? So the delays in the trial do not negate the value of any potential outcome. i.e. the cost of achieving justice does not exceed the value of justice. Here we clearly had the opposite case, where the value of justice (billions of dollars either way) obviously would far, far outweigh the cost of a trial delay. The judge erred in disallowing that evidence due to a missed deadline, and I suspect we're going to have to sit through and pay for yet another trial to correct that error.
In history? I don't know. I imagine the South Sea Company or the East India Company are among the contenders. Companies like Standard Oil would also crush Apple. General Electric, Microsoft, Intel and Cisco both hit, in modern times, higher market caps than Apple.
Here's what I got from a quick Google.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/08/22/a-history-of-ridiculously-big-companies.aspx
Well, that actually would make a lot of business sense.
After all, if this drags on long enough, Samsung will be fighting over old technology that's no longer being sold, and then they can just drop the entire thing or settle. Without losing their market share or momentum. Apple's real goal of crushing their competition will have been thwarted, and Samsung just has to pay a fine.
As for prior art, there has been hardly anything that hasn't involved stealing ideas from someone else in the last couple of hundred years. What we need is a more sane approach to it, like do in the fashion industry. Without everyone tacitly agreeing to allow some copying of ideas, the industry itself would simply implode and cease to work properly. Because they do, though, there are rarely legal challenges and everyone prospers (or at least has the ability to try to do so). Innovation requires copying and improving upon existing ideas. Without any ability to do so, people simply go to where they can. ie - China, currently.
Apple is slowly killing itself off in the mad rush to protect everything down to the placement of a screw and the color of a connector. They're so focused upon the minor tiny crap that they are losing sight of the reality of the marketplace. People buy your product because of the total package that you offer. They could care less what some minor effect or component looks like or where it came from. The more money they waste and the more bad press they generate, the closer they come to the mess they created in the mid 90s. They go down while clutching onto their patents and pride while the majority of the consumers have simply moved on to less expensive and less restrictive products.
Except this time, there is no Jobs to rescue them. And Wozniak isn't coming to save anything, either.
I see things differently.
Yes, everybody has opinions. You have them. PJ has them. I have them. If you agreed to 'everything' on Groklaw, you might actually share many of my opinions, although perhaps not all (not everything I care about is discussed on Groklaw).
The 'consensus' on Groklaw seems to be that claiming (software) patents are a 'bad' thing. I happen to agree.
I did read Groklaw on this case the last few days, and did find interesting facts in there. As to whether everything reported is 'true', that is hard to verify from here; I did for instance not hear any of the jurors myself, so cannot testify as to how any statements could or should be explained. But discussing HOW they could be interpreted seems legitimate enough.
The results so far are, from an "anti software patents view", not reassuring. Can everything work out right in the end? Who knows. Not upholding the iPad 'trade dress' may be a light in the dark. This might in the end lead to the abolishment of software patents. But who knows, SCOTUS has neglected to rule on things which in my opinion are 'bad laws', and software patents in the States may live another 10-20 years.
Am I disappointed (in the jury)? Yes.
Could something have been wrong with the way the jury came to a conclusion? Yes.
May it be a vector to research and discuss? Yes. I see NOTHING wrong in discussing this.
I see nothing wrong with the discussions on Groklaw on this point. I realize many people here on Slashdot are Apple fans, and as such anything Apple may do will recieve positive feedback from a large crowd.
Do I think those people are wrong? Yes, I do.
Do I believe these people are astroturfing/are shills? No, the way I see it, many people convinced of 'the Apple way' are so from conviction. From the active way you participate in this discussion (many times with +3 or +5 insightful), I guess you (and others) may be very disappointed with the fact that Groklaw mostly took a position opposite to yours.
The fact that you agreed previously with Groklaw may make this more emotional with you, I guess 'wrong' opinions by people or groups respected by you comes harder. I do, however, see a trend at Groklaw, which only could lead to it taking the stand that it took (and takes): software patents are bad, anyone using them to stifle innovation or competition should be frowned upon, and any legal arguments against this should be investigated.
I write this post, trying to avoid letting this be seen as an 'ad hominem' attack on you.
I do, however, believe that your attack here on Groklaw is misplaced. If you see any factual errors, please state them on Groklaw, as far as I know dissenting opinions are given enough room.
Apparently the juror wanted to "send a message" abotu infringing patents (yeah, the guy who has a patent and is probably trying to set a precedent about getting a billion dollars for himself sometime in the future).
Groklaw said:
Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:
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.
Mind you, if a patent like GSM radio communication sells for 1 cent per device, I can easily see why 'pinch to zoom' should sell for at least $10 per device :)
Judge will definitely invalidate this one.
Why? This judge (Lucy Koh) has acted consistently with overt bias from the word go. What do expect when the trial venue was basically down the street from Apple HQ. I understand the Cupertino police work for Apple as well.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The fact that juries are even used in patent disputes... can everyone please think about that again? I know jury trials are enshrined in the US constitution, but they aren't fairer or better. They were, when the constitution was written. The amount of specialist knowledge required in many types of modern legal dispute means that jury trials are more about the charisma of lawyers than anything else. I think it is time to start phasing them out in favour of panels of experts in cases like this, and legal experts (judges) in other cases. There will always be some cases where a jury trial is warranted, but they are becoming a minority.