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."

Comments

Re:Foreman conflicted interests?

[GuyRiley]

So.... this guy patented putting a wireless keyboard and SD card slot on a cable box? Wow, no wonder things shook out the way they did.

Is everyone OK?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

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?

Re:Is everyone OK?

[danomac]

Well, if Samsung won, it probably would've been thrown out anyway as it was all over the news regarding the judge not allowing prior art evidence. This whole trial is a mess.

Re:Is everyone OK?

[petsounds]

Juries can talk about whatever they want in private deliberations, and there's no way you can remove prior knowledge and bias from the jury unless you weed out those people during voir dire. Obviously it was in Apple's interest to have a guy who held patents on the jury, so they kept him in. The other jurors could have well told the foreman they wanted more explicit information or explanations from the judge, but they chose to heed the foreman's advice. Some others had engineering experience. This wasn't your average tech-stupid jury. Was it perhaps a bad decision to not get more explicit instructions, yes.

Is that cause for mistrial? I doubt it. From what we've heard, there was no suggestion that they discussed or researched the case outside of the deliberation room. Could they have screwed up in other ways and cause a mistrial? Well, I guess we'll find out. But I was under the impression that juror comments post-trial cannot be used to change the outcome of the trial.

Re:Foreman conflicted interests?

[symbolset]

Yes, he patented the DVR two years after the release of the TIVO. So he would know a thing or two about prior art.

Re:Many of the Jurors seem to be like US

[Solandri]

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.

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.

Re:judge will invalidate

[Shining Celebi]

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

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion?

[gbjbaanb]

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 :)

Re:judge will invalidate

[Tough Love]

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.