Does the 21 hour deliberation point to a flaw in the jury's thinking?

2. PapaSmurf posted on 26 Aug 2012, 21:29 13 0

The more I read, the more I want to move into the woods and forget what I just read...

3. dragonscourgex posted on 26 Aug 2012, 21:51 19 1

So, the jury can just skip evidence. That's nice to know.

5. Slammer posted on 26 Aug 2012, 22:01 17 1

No question that there was some damaging evidence against Samsung. However, I think the most crucial keypoint from the juror, is that Apple won from day one of deliberations. This thinking greatly affects and conditions the mind in possibly making a wrong conclusion for judgement. So, no matter what Samsung placed in front of the panel for evidence, Samsung had the cards stacked against them from day one.

John B.

8. sp3llv3xit posted on 26 Aug 2012, 22:44 9 0

Americans love Apple.

It's typical of a people to love their own.

Since they rendered this verdict, let its effects be confined to the borders of the United States. They can live without any other mobile phones save for iPhones!

10. networkdood posted on 26 Aug 2012, 23:35 4 0

Back from being banned for saying a particular name of an animal. Wow...the jury in this case should b dismissed for ignorance... it was a rush job...obviously.

12. Contreramanjaro posted on 26 Aug 2012, 23:42 4 0

I don't like the iPhone. I don't like Samsung phones. I like the rest of the stuff those companies make though. I wasn't biased for either side to win but I was shocked by how quickly the jury worked and a little suspicious.

Honestly, I think Samsung crossed a few lines on the iPhone and iPad but not to the extent they said. Things like pinch to zoom have almost crossed the line into standard operations and they seem like they should not be severely punished.

I was pretty surprised also at how well Samsung defended itself and had me on their side at the end of it all adding to my later surprise. The only reason I'm so concerned about this ruling is I don't want it to open a path towards everyone just suing each other and killing off newer, smaller phone makers.

Where would we be if tech companies started out this way 30 years ago? There was so much open source that led to better experiencse for users (like VisiCalc.)

13. traccer055 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 00:13 6 0

happy to know how horrid this jury was

15. jroc74 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 00:49 3 1

"You also might recall how Samsung pushed the issue of prior art to defend itself. The jury took hours of Samsung's defense and in the words of juror IIagan, "In fact we skipped that one, so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." "

Nothing more needs to be said after reading this..

WOW.

Well....at least the juror was honest....lol.

16. TheRetroReplay posted on 27 Aug 2012, 00:51 3 0

I knew that something was wrong with that jury. They decided to forgo Samsung's defense and evidence and were more interested in punishing Samsung. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury was rigged in Apple's favor and saying that the decision was for Apple since day one kinda drives that suspicion.

The jury did not care about Samsung's side, that should have been a mistrial.

18. android8 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 01:07 2 1

I think Apple got the advantage of being in home country.

19. Fuego84 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 01:46 0 1

The jury had their brains iwashed I bet a long time before this trial.

20. Fuego84 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 01:53 0 0

They should of chose jury members consisting of people that don't currently use iphones or Samsung phones. Maybe an some windows phone users and blackberry users.

24. saltydog15 posted on 27 Aug 2012, 06:47 0 0

was SJ one of the 7 male jurors? 'we can skip that piece of evidence, YOU'RE HOLDING IT WRONG!'

25. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 27 Aug 2012, 08:19 0 0

Koh is a rookie judge. Whether she wants to go down in history or pass that along to someone who wants the spotlight will be the important factor here. Looking at the jury foreman's responses, it would be easy to throw the trial out and restart again with a new jury. Going to be interesting to see how this one pans out.

26. ericsorensen posted on 27 Aug 2012, 09:23 0 0

They also awarded damages for Samsung phones where there could be no loss of iPhone sales (phones that were on networks other than AT+T). Acording to other blog sites, that would reduce the amount from $1B to $256M.

28. Scott_H posted on 27 Aug 2012, 14:29 2 0

I am truly flabergasted. They just skipped the issue of prior art? That's sort of like being the jury for a speeding ticket and skipping the part about whether or not the cop could positively identify the car they ticketed...

31. No_Nonsense posted on 28 Aug 2012, 08:09 0 0

I guess Koh's on crack