Originally Posted by afv011
If what we have heard is true (the jury skipped the instructions, ignored the prior art evidence, went for punishing fees instead of reasonable royalty fees), then Samsung has a strong case on their side.
Of course, absolutely none of this is true however.
1.The jury didn't skip the instructions; the instructions were read to the jury in open court. The quote that Groklaw was flogging to support this idea (since they didn't actually follow the trial) came from when the jury went back in to fix the two discrepancies in the verdict form. This is crystal clear in the Verge's coverage; Groklaw took it out of context.
2. The jury didn't ignore the prior art evidence that was presented.
3. The idea that they went for punishing fees is another statement taken out of context. Here's the actual quote from the juror:
However, Hogan said Apple's damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were "extraordinarily high," partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to.
Apple's damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apple's percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung.
Samsung's damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said.
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
IOW, they thought that Apple's damages were too high, which is why they only awarded 1/3 of those damages, much closer to what Samsung recommended. It's clear that they were not trying to punish Samsung.
(Coverage of these issues has been pretty bad, with most blogs just repeating headlines from other blogs, without looking at the actual sources).
I should also point out that juror statements about deliberations are not grounds for appeal unless they relate to bribery or someone outside the jury trying to influence them.