Did the Apple vs. Samsung Jury Fail to Properly Do Their Job?

[obsessed2]

There's growing evidence that the jury did not properly do their job.

http://www.androidpit.com/did-the-ap...r-job-properly

[ScotiaBurrell]

Stunning that a site called androidpit would disagree with the rulling.

Major subtopic:

They Were Probably Biased from the Start

[ucfgrad93]

If the androidpit article is true, then I guess Samsung will have an easy time with an appeal.

[obsessed2]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Stunning that a site called androidpit would disagree with the rulling.

Major subtopic:

It looks like Samsung's going to have very strong grounds for appeal thanks to one wildly inconsistent jury.

http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-a...ay-not-hold-up




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.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/0...ogging-us-down





Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-factors.shtml




Biased US Jury Declares Samsung Infringes All Apple’s Ridiculous Patents, Sammy To Cough Up 1 Billion Dollars In Damages.

http://www.chiphazard.com/2012/08/25...rs-in-damages/




The jury: why Apple was never going to lose against Samsung.

http://memeburn.com/2012/08/the-jury...ainst-samsung/




Samsung, Apple Jury Ignored Prior Art. Rushed to Ruling, Surprising Even Apple's Attorney.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/S...ior-Art-120938

[RainingLemur]

It certainly looks that way, but we'll see how appeals go.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Stunning that a site called androidpit would disagree with the rulling.

Major subtopic:

If you want a less biased source, see http://www.groklaw.net

[ShellShock]

I am amazed that the jury are allowed to talk about their deliberations, and are not bound to secrecy. Is this normal in the US?

[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.

[piper28]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

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.

Ouch, I have to think that part right there is going to cause issues.

Originally Posted by ShellShock

I am amazed that the jury are allowed to talk about their deliberations, and are not bound to secrecy. Is this normal in the US?

Yeah, once trials are over, the jury members can say whatever they want.

[heySkippy]

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking going on.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by JoeD

If you want a less biased source, see http://www.groklaw.net

Groklaw is *not* a less biased source at all. They are a FOSS advocacy site, which is fine, but their trial coverage reflects that bias, and has been absolutely terrible.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Groklaw is *not* a less biased source at all. They are a FOSS advocacy site, which is fine, but their trial coverage reflects that bias, and has been absolutely terrible.

However its hard not to agree with some of their key points from watching the 15 minute interview with the jury foreman and reading the jury instructions document yourself.

Geaham

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

If what we have heard is true...

That is a pretty big if.
We have very little information, and an awful lot over overexcited inferences being drawn from it.

[Andrew H.]

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.

FIGURING DAMAGES

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.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Graham

However its hard not to agree with some of their key points from watching the 15 minute interview with the jury foreman and reading the jury instructions document yourself.

Geaham

Not at all. Groklaw was wrong about the jury not reading the instructions. Groklaw was wrong about the damages being punitive. Groklaw is wrong about the jury disregarding prior art.

Groklaw's coverage of this case has been lazy, sloppy, and uninformed; it's a waste of time to even go to the site.