View Single Post
Old 08-29-2012, 10:17 PM   #23
afv011
Captain Penguin
afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afv011 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afv011's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,830
Karma: 2076640493
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: nook*, nexus 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
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:



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.
"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful".

That there indicates with no doubt that they did not look for "reasonable royalty fees", but went for a punishing figure. That can be appealed by Samsung.
afv011 is offline   Reply With Quote