Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down"

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the that-stuff'll-just-get-in-the-way dept.

Android 506

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

judge will invalidate (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129067)

I can not see the judge confirming this verdict. It was way too quick

Re:judge will invalidate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129109)

America needs the income.

how much per phone is 1 billion? (2, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about 2 years ago | (#41129169)

It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less. This is not a terribly inappropriate sum or one that's going to ruin samsung. Indeed samsung would have been glad to pay a billion for the opportunity to take Nokia's market share away from them. Nokia elected to use patent indemnified Windows, they exchanged patents with apple, and Microsoft paid for patents to apple as well. Samsung got the market jump on nokia going the faster but less vetted approach of Android. They, according to their own documents, made deliberate decisions to chuck their in house designs where they differed from apples.

Samsung is coming out handsomly since it now has Nokia's market.

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (3, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41129225)

I think the effect this case will have on the broadness of design patents is more important than the actual money. (Also, I thought Nokia's market was primarily the not-quite-smart market?)

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129299)

I thought Nokia's market was primarily the not-quite-smart market?

Yes, hence the decision to use a Microsoft OS.

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129445)

Burn!

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (0, Redundant)

Aviation Pete (252403) | about 2 years ago | (#41129359)

It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less.

Wow - is this the math they teach you in school these days? Please at least do a cursory check before posting rubbish like that!

Explanation, because you really might not get this yourself: To fall below $10 per phone, at least 100 million phones must be sold. Now factor in that Samsung sells most of their phones with razor-slim margins to carriers, and the $20 to $50 which is really involved is a multiple of their margin.

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129523)

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.

Re:how much per phone is 1 billion? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129461)

Of course it's inappropriate when the patents aren't valid.

Design patent for a 2000+ year old design? Apple should know better - they just tried it to see if they could get away with it.

Stealing ideas from innovators in other fields and then patenting them with the words "on a phone" or "on a tablet" - wtf is that? again, they did it to see if they could get away with it.

I bet there isn't a single patent that Apple has that is valid.

Should just wipe em all away, bunch of idea thiefs. Should just take all of their assets away and distribute them amongst us, the people who's money they've been stealing for years and years.

Fuck Apple!

Can this kind of troll die already? (1, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41129191)

No. No judge in the US, or the EU, or anywhere else is concerned about the national budget. It is not their job, it is not their boss' job, or the job of anybody they've ever met.

Saying that judiciary decisions are made because of the budget only shows that you have no idea how a government operates. And that you are a troll.

Saying all US judges are honest is stupid. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129441)

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.

Re:judge will invalidate (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#41129285)

It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.

Re:judge will invalidate (0)

dell623 (2021586) | about 2 years ago | (#41129275)

You haven't been reading how the judge has treated the case so far. Remember it's the same judge who handed out preliminary injunctions against Samsung products before the trial even took place. The verdict will stand. For now.

phew (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 2 years ago | (#41129079)

I was worried for a moment. I would love for this to go again with a new judge and jury. -Posted from Galaxy Tab 10.1

Re:phew (-1, Flamebait)

Wovel (964431) | about 2 years ago | (#41129105)

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.

Re:phew (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129123)

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.

Care to proffer these "objective pieces" so we can stray from Groklaw's "fairly anti-apple" bias?

Re:phew (1, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129239)

Care to proffer these "objective pieces" so we can stray from Groklaw's "fairly anti-apple" bias?

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.

But Groklaw (which I have followed and loved for years) has really jumped the shark on this one, and gone into a paroxysm of denial and twisting of the facts and hysteria--which I've talked about a bit elsewhere in this thread (see "Groklaw is too emotionally involved"). They started off better, but slowly descended to the edge of absolute madness, example: claiming that the thing with raised yellow rubberized bumpers in Soylent Green was indistinguishable from an iPad!

From excerpts I've seen, FOSS Patents was actually more on target with this one, but I refuse to read him, because I know how badly he misrepresents things, how completely unable he is to objectively evaluate. (And what a liar he has been in the past--see opposition to Oracle's purchase of MySQL and his letter to EU commission.) So to the extent that he was right, I would consider that an accident of his prejudice aligning with reality, for once.

Re:phew (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129245)

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.

Re:phew (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41129307)

which I have followed and loved for years

but I refuse to read him, because I know how badly he misrepresents things, how completely unable he is to objectively evaluate. (And what a liar he has been in the past--see opposition to Oracle's purchase of MySQL and his letter to EU commission.) So to the extent that he was right, I would consider that an accident of his prejudice aligning with reality, for once.

Someone who has been "following Groklaw for years" doesn't make this mistake. Either that or you are one of those people who still insists that PJ is actually 5 people at IBM.

And your argument is backed up by nothing.

--
BMO

Re:phew (2)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41129327)

Oh nevermind. Disregard the above. I thought you were talking about PJ

That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.

And I still think you're trying to smear Groklaw unjustly.
--
BMO

Re:phew (2, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129403)

That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.

FOSS Patents is most certainly not a contributor to Groklaw. It is a completely different site, with a different viewpoint, nearly always the opposite of Groklaw (so far, it's much newer). And I was contrasting it to Groklaw.

I went back and checked, and my post was perfectly clear. This misunderstanding is 100% on you. Either you skimmed it and skipped entire phrases, or you have extremely poor reading skills.

Re:phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129333)

Reading comprehension, mate. The "he" you point out is referring to FOSS Patents, which is to say, Florian Mueller.

Re:phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129339)

You are mistaken. The poster is referring to FOSS Patents, not Groklaw, in that section. The 'he' is presumably Florian.

Re:phew (-1)

friedmud (512466) | about 2 years ago | (#41129345)

Well... for a report that is a little more balanced see this CNN article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ [cnet.com]

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?

Why did it need to take _days_ for the jury to find in this case? This isn't a murder trial without a murder weapon. Nor is it some complicated manslaughter case involving cell-phone use while driving... or any other type of "grey area" type case with dire consequences of getting it wrong.

The jurors sat there for _weeks_ listening to this stuff. Do you not think that in that time they were able to form an opinion and when it came time to make a decision there was a bit of heated debate until everyone agreed and then they ruled? What exactly were they supposed to talk about for so long? The considered all the evidence (and had been considering it for weeks... this is ALL they were doing for _weeks_) and came to a conclusion.

Quit letting your own personal biases against patents and closed source / closed ecosystems get in the way of believing that a jury of, by all accounts very capable, people could rule in favor of Apple. The law is the law... this group of people think the law is in favor of Apple. That is all. Nothing more...

Re:phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129413)

*yawn*

Re:phew (2)

FhnuZoag (875558) | about 2 years ago | (#41129435)

Juries, however, are supposed to make decisions according to the jury instructions they were given. If it's clear that they did not even read the instructions, and failed to apply a reasonable process in evaluating each case fairly and individually, then the judge is justified in filing for a mistrial.

Re:phew (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129473)

>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?

Re:phew (4, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | about 2 years ago | (#41129477)

I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..

"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 [groklaw.net]

Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.

Re:phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129165)

Anti-apple? You're full of shit [groklaw.net] .

Re:phew (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41129179)

>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

Re:phew (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#41129383)

PJ has been extremely anti-Apple and pro-Samsung in this case. You're right that she sided with Apple in the Psystar case though. But that doesn't change the fact about her biases in this particular case. The general rule is that she's pro-FOSS and anti-(anything that threatens FOSS). It's very clear to any neutral observer that she bats for a particular side in any case. That's why I am usually shocked when people believe and claim on here that she provides unbiased coverage. It's just that people feel that way because of their own biases in any case and then shoot down any posts that talk about her bias. Except in this case, it's one Slashdot darling against another(Apple vs PJ) so the comments will be funny to watch (since the usual ganging up of Apple fans against Slashdot Borgs MS/Oracle etc. will be missing in this case). I don't believe that PJ is a paid shill but I doubt anyone can realistically claim she's not biased. If this case was about Apple vs. MS in place of Samsung/Google, you can be sure she'd be taking Apple's side on everything instead of Samsung/MS, even if the facts were exactly the same as they are now.

Groklaw is on the side of the Law (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129443)

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!

Re:phew (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129501)

The biases are with the facts not the companies.

Fact is that Apple's patents are crap in this instance, and Apple is playing the bully.

Those are the indisputable facts.

Get over yourself.

Re:phew (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#41129525)

That's because psystar did the really wrong thing legally.

I mean, really wrong thing. It's not that it's about first sale, it was that they were modifying the OS in bulk and selling as if they had the legitimate license to do so.

Re:phew (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | about 2 years ago | (#41129527)

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.

That was pretty much a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": If you go back and read the postings PJ was convinced that Psystar were being bankrolled by the same anti-GPL forces behind SCO (maybe) and that if Psystar's attempts to use anti-trust and "first sale" to overturn Apple's EULA succeeded, they'd be used as precedent to attack the GPL (questioning that logic would get you accused of being a paid Microsoft shill).

Re:phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129189)

Just because Apple went off the deep end of patent law abuse doesn't make commentators "anti-Apple". Their hilarious position of our-patents-are-valid-yours-are-not flies in the face of how patent MAD works and they're going to get pwned for it.

Re:phew (2)

deniable (76198) | about 2 years ago | (#41129205)

At least they're not unfairly anti-Apple.

Re:phew (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#41129207)

Not only that, I suspect when he said they skipped it (the previous sentences indicate they had a very heavy, although civil, debate about it going on), they most likely circled back to it later once tempers had cooled. This is perfectly acceptable. I've been a jury foreman before and we had similar instructions from the judge. If you needed to skip something while gathering more information, or just to review other evidence while deciding on a previous question, then do so. You may not be able to come to a decision on every question in the order they are given to the jury. If you can't resolve an answer, then skip it and come back to it later.

Samsung spent hours trying to present prior art evidence. They actually spent a relatively large portion of their case on it. Implying that the jury somehow 'skipped' it because the outcome isn't what you may have been hoping for it reaching a bit. Every jury gets very explicit instructions, and any time there is a deadlock, you can stop at any time and refer questions to the judge on how to proceed.

Re:phew (3, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#41129479)

This enforces the above. That they couldn't decide this one 'going down the list' and circled back later.

http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html [cnet.com]

One of Apple's clean sweeps in the verdict was that all Samsung's smartphones were found to infringe on Apple's patent covering bounce-back. In short, this is what lets a user scroll beyond the edge of an image, Web page, or list, and have it bounce back onto the screen.

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

Re:phew (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129249)

Groklaw is more for fairness and a saner patent system than anti-apple. PJ points out that she was accused of just the opposite in the Apple v. Pystar case. There were people accusing her of being an Apple fanboy at that time.

In this case the objections are more about the verdict not having fairly considered the evidence. From the speed of the jury deliberations alone (considering there were 700 questions that needed answering) it is hard to see how they managed. Add that to some of what the jury members have been saying and the whole process seems rather questionable that they paid attention to the instructions and the facts in the case.

Whether any of this adds any grounds for appeal or opportunities for the judge to adjust the verdict or damages is anyones guess.

Re:phew (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41129121)

Don't worry. Just like in the movie, the verdict will stand. The engineer will follow his kid, kidnapped by the spirit of Jobs, into the Latin American jungle, where a tribe of nice natives will use voodoo to help put the said spirit in hell and return the kid to his father.

Ignored prior art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129085)

Appeal approved!

Re:Ignored prior art? (3, Informative)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129247)

Appeal approved!

Of course, if they had actually ignored the prior art. Forget the spin in the post, and actually read the quote, carefully this time, and explain exactly how you conclude that they did not consider prior art.

Foreman conflicted interests? (4, Interesting)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41129103)

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?

Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41129145)

He's an electrical engineer. Here's his patent at the USPTO. [uspto.gov]

Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129209)

Wait, so he repatented the bastard child of a TIVO and a Wyse Terminal?

Because honestly nothing in there looks non-apparent, other than the fact that 2002 was about the first time the tech was there to do that in a settop box (cpu/gpu speed wise and such. And good luck finding any of those 'new codecs' that would run on that era of hardware.)

Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (5, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41129335)

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.

Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (5, Interesting)

GuyRiley (836754) | about 2 years ago | (#41129423)

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.

Re:Foreman conflicted interests? (1)

chrisc262 (1500519) | about 2 years ago | (#41129475)

That juror should have been disqualified. He is clearly biased.

Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129111)

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) [cornell.edu] 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?

Re:Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (2)

Herkum01 (592704) | about 2 years ago | (#41129163)

I don't know this might apply,

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juryâ(TM)s attention;

It depends on what could be considered "prejudicial" or not. If he had a pre-formed opinion (which seems likely) on patents and used that to basically ignore all prior-art evidence then that is certainly prejudicial.

Re:Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129233)

It sounds like the Samsung lawyers didn't do a very good job during the jury selection process. They should have questioned him more thoroughly during voir dire and entered a premptory challenge, or removal for cause to get that guy off the jury.

Re:Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (5, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41129277)

The way I read it is that they skipped evaluating one particular patent because they thought it was probably invalid because of prior art and didn't think it was worth their time even considering that patent, so they went on to considering other patents where they could understand the claims and the prior art situation better. I didn't see a blanket statement that they ignored prior art.

Re:Sounds like the jury foreman decided everything (2)

nedwidek (98930) | about 2 years ago | (#41129517)

I'm not sure that he fancied himself an expert. More likely he knows just how invalid his patent is and is more interested in propping up the whole broken system.

Seriously, how did it every get through the USPTO? That's rhetorical, I worked at IBM for too long and saw way too many of the patents that my group got.

AMERICAN JURY !! AMERICAN COMPANY !! WIN-WIN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129119)

Those Koreans eat their dogs, besides !! What jury on Earth (let alone America) would let dog-eaters win in anything ??

Foreman decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129143)

The fact that the lead juror held patents themself throws this out the window. That would be like an anti sexual assault campaigner serving as foreman on a sexual assault case.

This gives the foreman undue power over everyone else there. Either create a jury of experts or create a jury of laymen... Not both.

Could jury know trial would likely go to appeals? (3, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 2 years ago | (#41129153)

Could jury know trial would likely go to appeals? They might have known that this trial is a waste of time and not likely to get resolved prior to Supreme Court.

Re:Could jury know trial would likely go to appeal (4, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41129329)

IANAL, etc., but while they might have assumed that there would be an appeal - it was pretty much a given, regardless of the result, really - but it's not supposed to matter. One of their obligations as jurors is to set their personal opinions aside and provide both sides with a fair trial. If they can be shown to have failed to do that, then the only fair and legal way forward is to throw the entire thing out and start over from scratch with a new jury.

There are generally two way of appealing a verdict; attacking the opposing legal team (e.g. withholding and/or misrepresenting evidence), and attacking the court (e.g. failure to follow procedure, clear bias). I'm guessing Samsung's legal team will go mostly for the latter. Not withstanding the rulings from Judge Koh are heavily in Apple's favour, particularly in the case of denying some of their evidence (potential bias), there is a growing sentiment in the press that the jury badly failed in their duties, with the clear failure to sanity check their rulings against their penalties as Exhibit A.

My prediction; successful appeal from Samsung on grounds of a mis-trial then back to District Court for a do-over and, no doubt, subsequent appeals and counter appeals... It's going to be a loooong time before we can stick a fork in this one.

This is common (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 2 years ago | (#41129167)

Juries can pretty much do what they want, and then they only get overturned if it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to come out the way they did. I don't even thinks that it will matter if they were all high and determined their votes by flipping coins; so long as it is *possible* that a reasonable jury would come out with the verdict they picked. The exceptions lie for things like reading about the trial in the media rather than only learning about it from the witnesses and other evidence.

If it walks like a Duck... (2, Interesting)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | about 2 years ago | (#41129187)

This was a simple exercise of recognizing a duck and whether there were any before Apple hatched the egg first.

Samsung whined. Jurors were listening for a quack

$1B "settlement"????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129193)

It wasn't a settlement, Slashdot. Do the editors actually read the crap they post? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.

Groklaw is too emotionally involved (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129203)

They're now taking things BADLY out of context. For instance, the quote about not needing the jury instructions, was NOT about the whole decision, it just about resolving their original 2 mistakes of including damages for phones they found non-infringing--well duh they didn't need instructions about how to fix that.

And pay careful attention to the quote in the summary: the juror says they debated the prior art, then he says they "skipped that one". Hmm. He does not say they failed to consider prior art. He says the first one was bogging them down with the debate on prior art because they found it hard to believe there was not any. Then he says "they skipped that one", which, in context, probably means they put all questions regarding that patent aside to move on and see if the others were easier. But they did rule on it, which means they came back to it--and given their reports that debate was heated, it seems unlikely that they put it aside for a while, then came back and arbitrarily found for Apple without finishing their consideration of the evidence. It is really not reasonable to read that quote as saying the jury skipped consideration of prior art.

Reading Groklaw's opinions of this trial has become rather like reading FOSS Patent's opinions of the Oracle/Google trial, or Enderle/Didio's opinions of the SCO trials. They've become so emotionally attached to the outcome they wanted, that everything about the trial is twisted to become part of the (imaginary) wrong that Samsung and the world are suffering at the hands of this (allegedly) rogue jury. Seriously, don't you notice that their comments disparaging the jury (who spent 3 weeks listening all day to the details of this stuff, far more than any of us will ever know about it) sound like SCO or Oracle disparaging their respective juries???

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (2)

miffo.swe (547642) | about 2 years ago | (#41129231)

Regardless of what you think, going back on all the other cases Groklaw has been following has made people like you put to shame. Every single time they are right on the money. Ofcourse they have to be wrong some time but so far, grade A+ every single time. Ill think i wait this one out and see who is right.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (-1, Flamebait)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129271)

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?

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129483)

Astroturfing?

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (4, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#41129257)

I agree with what you said, except I have to add to the last paragraph that Groklaw is pretty opinionated and biased in most of their coverage, except that people like you are noticing it this time around because Groklaw's bias is not fitting with yours. If you think they're anti-Apple in this case, you think they haven't been extremely biased all along in Microsoft related cases? But since PJ is the darling of Slashdot while MS is the borg, anyone even hinting bias in Groklaw has been called a paid shilll and shot down and modded down to the depths of hell all along. By the way, I don't believe she's paid to do what she does, but the bias is always there, except this time it is more noticeable to the Apple fans on Slashdot, many of who previously jumped on the anti-MS bandwagon that Groklaw ran and called it the best legal unbiased analysis of tech law issues around. Funny how biases and prejudices work.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (1, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129321)

You know, you're right. There was anti-MS bias. But it was milder, and she still managed to present the facts pretty well despite her strong opinions. But now I realize that as time has gone on, I have been gradually filtering out more and more opinion as I read Groklaw.

On the SCO cases, she nailed it. Yes, there was lots of opinion, but it was correct and justified, based completely in the facts of the cases and the participants' behavior. Since then I guess it has been a slow downhill slide, and in this case finally crossed some lines: definitely the line of my tolerance, but also I think a more important line: the line where you could recognize, and evaluate or ignore as you wanted, opinion, and still get the facts. You can't do that anymore--quotes baldly misrepresented to have a meaning that was obviously not intended (and obviously contrary to the claims of the person being quoted) is something that has not previously happened on Groklaw, and something that makes it no longer a quality information source--in fact renders it a really bad one.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129499)

But since PJ is the darling of Slashdot while MS is the borg, anyone even hinting bias in Groklaw has been called a paid shilll and shot down and modded down to the depths of hell all along. By the way, I don't believe she's paid to do what she does, but the bias is always there,

Please, go fuck yourself. Yes, she has bias. She has a bias for presenting relevant facts and for trenchant legal analysis, neither of those things you've offered in your smear. She's popular with /. because she's usually right and always puts forth her arguments in good faith. Unlike, say, the shlls and "reputation managment" drones that usually pop up in these kinds of posts to complain of PJ's "biases", as if bias for the truth is anything to be ashamed of. Please, just go fuck yourself.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129507)

Lol - I guess today is a busy day at Waggener Erdstrom. A apple troll and a microsoft shill get voted insightful, among moans of a pretended anti-apple and anti-microsoft bias of groklaw and slashdot... Come on, get a few more of your IDs writing here so we can identify all today, or are they too busy upvoting the trolls and downvoting any comment that isn't pro-apple and pro-microsoft?
Really, slashdot is being completely overrun by these marketeers, there should be a way to better contain them.

I understand that it upsets you that groklaw has exposed that the jury, lead by an "inventor" with a crappy software patent for a tivo clone, as a bunch of irresponsible idiots who decided to ignore prior art because it bogged them down, was unable to add the damages they awarded, and even confessed to ignore the judge instructions by awarding punitive damages.

Samsung now has enough for a mistrial, at least if apple hasn't bought yet all of the judicial system in the US. The confessed actions of the jury, their errors, and the actions of the judge, denying Samsung the possibility of presenting key evidence, should be enough to overturn this imbecile decision. I guess that all this information is dampening the fanbois party a bit - even if I don't see why anyone but a complete moron would hail a decision that means the end of innovation in the USA.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (4, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#41129283)

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.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129355)

...but they are still emphasising facts...

Not lately. Lately it's been misquotes, misrepresentations, and opinions. That's my problem with it. In this case, they've let their emotional involvement overwhelm good sense.

I'd been following them for over 9 years and finally gave up and unsubscribed yesterday, not because I care so much about whether or not they agree with me on any particular case, but because it hurt too much to see quality thrown out the window like that. 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.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (0)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#41129431)

I also thought they might have been editorializing a bit too much in the case, but compared to most US tech news that was drinking the Apple cool-aid, it just seemed like a counter-balance, and since Groklaw still brought in detail analysis of actual legal documents, it was still a great source of news. If nothing else you can use it to predict a lot of the facts Samsung will use to get an appeal, and if you read mainstream US tech news, you wouldn't find any suggestions of anything that would justify an appeal.

But given your response, maybe you are the one that is too emotional involved in the case (and in your phone hardware).

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129289)

Your post is incomprehensible. What do you mean by "they" and "their comments" over at Groklaw? You do know that anyone can post there, just like on Slashdot, right? So if the consensus of public opinion is that this jury rushed and screwed up, you automatically attribute that to the site itself which reports that?

And you do know that PJ posts full texts of legal documents there, so the readers and commentators can make up their own minds, don't you? And if you have ever spent any amount of time at all reading through the comments over there, you get the clear impression their readers RTFA a lot more than they do on Slashdot.

I call shill. For you to liken PJ to Didio and her ilk

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129309)

Well, putting those parts aside, it does seem that a juror stated they set the damages in order to "send a message" and punish Samsung, something which is explicitly forbidden by the jury instructions. I'm not sure how that could possibly be quoted out of context.

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129505)

Well, putting those parts aside, it does seem that a juror stated they set the damages in order to "send a message" and punish Samsung, something which is explicitly forbidden by the jury instructions. I'm not sure how that could possibly be quoted out of context.

Quite easily: having found infringement, and having found that it was willful, the law (and jury instructions) were that damages should be the entire profit derived from the infringing devices. Samsung at various times had produce about 10 (I forget exactly, it was either 9 or 12) different analyses of their profit margins, including one, different from all others, for the admitted (under cross-examination) sole purpose of presentation to this jury. So they had in their hands estimates of Samsung's profit margins ranging from about 10% to about 35%, and they were required to find damages in the amount of the profits.

They rejected the highest estimate (which came from Apple, not Samsung), and they rejected the lowest, and from that point it was basically a SWAG as to what the profits actually were--because of Samsung's obvious attempts to obfuscate. Given that, they did want to make sure that the number they picked was high enough to cause Samsung some actual pain.

So there's your context that was left out. Also left out was the rest of that juror's sentence: "We felt like we were 100 percent fair..."

Re:Groklaw is too emotionally involved (1)

devent (1627873) | about 2 years ago | (#41129511)

Did you even read Groklaw? The quote is from CNET. Groklaw quoted CNET sufficient and made some conclusions.

Taking a step back... (2, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41129235)

... and there's a potential huge opportunity for Samsung's marketing department here. As seen here [google.com] , a court has just effectively ruled that Samsung's products are equivalent to Apple's. So, other than the Apple logo and brand name, why would you want an iThing when you can have the Samsung equivalent for any from a few tens of bucks to several hundred bucks less? After all, according to a US District Court, they are now essentially the same thing!

The trick (of course) would be for Samsung to pull off the marketing campaign without being found in contempt of court or getting their products pulled from the shelves...

we skipped that one so we could go on faster (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#41129241)

"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"

LOL!

Go Samsung, go jugular!

Re:we skipped that one so we could go on faster (1)

friedmud (512466) | about 2 years ago | (#41129379)

Just means they moved on from that issue _for that moment_. Never does it say they never returned to it. This is pretty normal in any group debate. You fight for a while about an issue... then you move on to try to find some common ground somewhere else... the COME BACK to the first issue much later to make a decision.

I really think these quotes are being taken out of context.

Re:we skipped that one so we could go on faster (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41129417)

LOL!

Funny way to spell *facepalm*.

crApple is quickly becoming a monopoly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129261)

Oh wait, since they cater to the fudgepacking, twinkie sucking faggots they will get a pass and will continue to monopolize the market yet continue to claim that somehow Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Typical for the fucktarded shitdot sheeple.

Woot! I pissed off the fucktarded shitdot sheeple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129341)

And got a Flamebait mod! WOOT! The fucktarded shitdot sheple can't handle the truth that Communist Opensores and Crapple both cater to the fudgepacking, twinkie sucking fucktarded faggots (all members of shitdot) who should go slit their fucking wrists.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

This is the right of jurors (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 2 years ago | (#41129311)

Jurors are free people. They may not behave like the programmed robots the judges or attorneys would like them to but this wild card is purposefully designed into the system as a last barrier to injustice. For example, if I was on a jury in a death penalty case I would not issue a sentence of death during the sentencing phase. I am incapable of doing so because I know the death penalty system in this country is fundamentally unjust. My sense of personal integrity would not allow it.

Re:This is the right of jurors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129361)

That's why you would never be allowed on a jury considering execution.

Re:This is the right of jurors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129451)

Unless you shut your mouth. And if asked if you "can" you say yes. Not you will. its called Jury nullification.

Re:This is the right of jurors (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41129393)

For example, if I was on a jury in a death penalty case I would not issue a sentence of death during the sentencing phase. I am incapable of doing so because I know the death penalty system in this country is fundamentally unjust. My sense of personal integrity would not allow it.

Sounds like the sort of thing that would get you rejected at selection.

Re:This is the right of jurors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129467)

Quite right, it's a jury of your peers(*).

(*) - But only of your peers that agree with the law, even if they have to scour the entire country to find the only 12 that agree.

Re:This is the right of jurors (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41129415)

Jururs still need to support and act within the law. The exception, of course, is when the law itself is bad. This is not such a case. So while I appreciate your mini-rant, this jury acted outside of the process in ways which might be approaching contempt.

And this greedy patent holder foreman used this trial to send a message? To punish? This is completely inappropriate behavior and to ignore evidence is unforgivable. And to ADMIT to causing and even directing an miscarriage of justice like this? Unbelievably stupid. He might be lucky not to be prosecuted or sued.

Re:This is the right of jurors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129497)

You don't think the law is bad? Are you a retard?

Dem foreigners' be stealin' our stuff! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129337)

Foreman: Dem foreigners' be stealin' our stuff! Ah we goin' to let dat happen to our Great Country? I say HELL NO! Let's show dem Koreans what we think about our pride and glory AAPL!

Jury: guily.

In case anyone was wondering... (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41129357)

"What could possibly go wrong?!" Now we know.

And in case anyone ever asked "why do they select such stupid people to be in juries" that question should be answered now as well. Normally I would think "let jurists be experts in their fields" and I am sure lots of others do as well. It makes sense somehow. But as we can see, a patent-holding jury foreman sided with his feelings on the matter rather than on the facts. Not only that, he was already prejudiced in favor of Apple as were many jury members.

Samsung doesn't need to appeal, they need a new trial. And in this trial, they need to be even more careful about the jury selection.

You know what's worse than self-righteous rich people? Self-righteous wannabe-rich.

Re:In case anyone was wondering... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41129453)

Not only that, he was already prejudiced in favor of Apple as were many jury members.

Uhm, "prejudice" has to do with pre-judging, in other words judging before you hear the facts. That they were leaning towards Apple after sitting through 15 days of testimony is not prejudice.

Consider this: why would the foreman's being a patent-holder prejudice him in favor of finding infringement of Apple's patents by Samsung, yet at the same time prejudice him against finding infringement of Samsung's patents by Apple?

It was not an unreasonable verdict (1)

Brannon (221550) | about 2 years ago | (#41129457)

Patent law might be unreasonable, but the verdict was pretty reasonable given the law.

Was there any doubt that Samsung was specifically trying to copy elements which were covered by Apple patents? No.

Are the patents valid. Yes.

Case closed.

Re:It was not an unreasonable verdict (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41129491)

Ignoring prior art proves they weren't interested in the second question.

Jurors as ex parte expert witnesses (5, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41129395)

How does the judicial system compensate for a jury foreman aggressively promoting himself as a de facto expert witness?

Re:Jurors as ex parte expert witnesses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129489)

Two ways (before) Voire Dire and (after) retrial/appeals.

How fucked up is America today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129399)

Not only is the patent system fraught with abuse, the jurisprudence system is just as fucked up.
And how long before those green funny money become totally worthless coming off the overtime printing presses.

Many of the Jurors seem to be like US (-1, Flamebait)

wisebabo (638845) | about 2 years ago | (#41129449)

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.

Two words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41129529)

Suck it.

Somebody said it very well: (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | about 2 years ago | (#41129531)

"When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious.' "
- Dan Frakes [twitter.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?