Juror in Apple v. Samsung patent trial says it was Apple from day one of deliberations
Of the voluminous amount of evidence, what specifically convinced Ilagan? It seems that the emails that Samsung executives sent to each other asking which of Apple's features they should add to their own devices was a smoking gun in his mind. Also leading to his vote against Samsung was the chart showing what the Korean manufacturer's phones looked like prior to the release of the first Apple iPhone, and what they looked like afterward. The juror also felt that Samsung executives testifying via video link up from Korea were dodging questions.
Ilagan said that this chart showing Samsung phone designs prior to and after the iPhone's launch, weighed heavily in his decision
Courtroom action also persuaded Ilagan that Apple had not infringed upon Samsung patents. When Samsung argued that Apple had infringed on the Korean tech firm's patents with the baseband chip on the Apple iPhone and the third iteration of the iPad, Apple attorney's pointed out that a contract signed by Samsung and Intel had a clause that prevented Samsung from suing any company Intel sold the chips to. Apple presented receipts showing that it had bought the chips from Intel.
4. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5289; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
"Ilagan said that the jury felt from day one of deliberations that Samsung had "harmed" Apple." Nothing like right out of the gate, coming to the conclusion that Samsung had harmed Apple....
83. ardent1 (Posts: 1983; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> Nothing like right out of the gate, coming to the conclusion that Samsung had harmed Apple....
Okay, the TRUTH hurts.
27. -box- (Posts: 3568; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
So, in short, due to Samsung not being able to defend itself using its own phones and prototypes from before the iphone, the jury went against them.
What baloney. They should watch 12 Angry Men (either the Peter Fonda version or the more recent one) and maybe get some critical thinking skills.
Speaking of which, I wonder what the spread was for the jury... 9-0? 5-4? Somewhere in between?
58. taz89 (Posts: 1948; Member since: 03 May 2011)
from what the jury were shown and were allowed to be shown it was clear that apple would lose. its why the appeal case will be interesting as samsung will be finally allowed to show the documents which showed that they were designing phones like the galaxy s before the iphone was announced...
81. Zero0 (Posts: 561; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
What happened in 12 Angry Men was illegal, I think. To my understanding, jurors are supposed to make their decision based on the evidence presented in court, as presented by each case.
69. SGSatlantis (Posts: 205; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)
Lets ask Jeremy Clarkson on his thoughts of the jury and their verdict:
"I would have them all shot,
I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families"
75. cdnfreak (Posts: 26; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
I gave this a thumbs up, bot because I think its right but because it's funny and think he likely would have said that.
2. androidornothing (Posts: 143; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)
This is so messed up i feel sorry for Samsung! Even though i have a GS3 i dont think things are going good for Samsung. However i think Apple should be careful because if Google gets involved then it will be NASTTY for Apple
18. Ravail (Posts: 181; Member since: 14 Oct 2011)
Oh yeah... but look at it like this.. Its a War: Apple Vs Android. This is just a battle that Android lost.. Now that Google has stepped in and has control of Motorola patents, Apple better watch the heck out.
73. whysoserious (Posts: 313; Member since: 20 Jul 2012)
Wrong. It's Apple vs. Samsung, not Android.
3. mukrenol (Posts: 90; Member since: 03 Sep 2011)
for the juries excellent services, they all be awarded the new upcoming ipad mini
(wait, it looks like a galaxy tab 7")
(no no, you got it wrong, apple 'invented the 7" too, it's rectangular... don't you know that?)
(oh.. are we stuck with fruit products forever?)
(i believe so... you will soon be fruit wash too... worst than some communist so call brain washing propagandas....)
77. hengnarath (Posts: 14; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)
Yes, when the iPad mini is out
-The Galaxy Tab 7'' will be called as the iPad mini by the issheep
-The Apple will bring Galaxy Tab 7'' to court again
-The iJudge will raise these 2 and ask someone [[Can you tell me which one is the iPad mini?]]
5. PapaSmurf (Posts: 6648; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Apple from day one. Huh.
That chart only shows the evolution of Samsung phones in 2007. F700 came out before the iPhone did and still that wasn't enough evidence for them. Cool.
7. PapaSmurf (Posts: 6648; Member since: 14 May 2012)
I thought you're suppose to make a decision at the END of the trial on who's guilty and who isn't, not the BEGINNING.
10. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
well obviously apple impressed from the start and samsung could not match them…
i feel like samsung's legal team was not taking this as seriously as they should have-- i mean they ran out of time and were making conference calls from korea? it just seems like if it were that important they should have flown to the US (that is just the impression it might give the jurors)
17. PapaSmurf (Posts: 6648; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Okay, but you can't just having a decision at the beginning. You have a decision in the beginning affects everything else in the case.
57. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
uh well what are the jurors supposed to think? it would be great to have them be objective from start to finish, but the human mind does not work that way-- apple started strong and samsung was unable to overturn their evidence
anyways this was one juror who disclosed information-- and I do not think it was right of him to do so
I agree jurors should be objective but everybody with experience in the courtroom knows thats not how things work, and any decent lawyer should be prepared for that… i dont think samsung's team was as flashy or prepared as apple's
59. taz89 (Posts: 1948; Member since: 03 May 2011)
well from what the jurors saw they had no choice but to agree with apple...samsung due to there own fault did not file necessary documents in time which could have helpd them ie the leaked documents which showed touchscreen only devices with a single home button being design by samsung before the iphone was announced...i hnonestly believe if these documents were shown in this case the results may have been different . not saying samsung would have won but damages may have been much smaller
60. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
if they thought samsung was guilty from day 1, then there was no impartial jury. you are supposed to believe the defendant is innocent until all evidence and counter evidence is given, then make your mind.. not make up your mind and then watch the proceedings.
61. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
it was not a mistrial.. he said "felt" not "was," which means they were not decided from day one…
this juror was clearly an idiot for disclosing court proceedings like this… but it is human nature to side with the choice that is more compelling from the beginning
this is just some idiot trying to get his moment of fame… who knows if what he said is even verified
65. taz89 (Posts: 1948; Member since: 03 May 2011)
agree but as humans its hard not to sometimes make a decision even if it is at a subconcious level...apple argued there side well where as samsung seemed very disorganised
62. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i agree.. and with all the flash of the apple lawyers (the pulling out phones at the end for example) the samsung team needed to be stronger
74. whysoserious (Posts: 313; Member since: 20 Jul 2012)
In short, the jurors were so dumbstruck with Apple's lawyers and forgot to use their common sense.
80. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
The decision they said was made day 1 of DELIBERATIONS. Feel free to look at a dictionary if you don't understand what a word means.
6. 1ceTr0n (Posts: 442; Member since: 20 May 2012)
Apple, the biggest and whiniest corporation in history of mankind. Like the wussy little school boy that narcs on everyone when he feels he gets picked on.
8. FrostyDanny (Posts: 90; Member since: 15 Jul 2012)
While I do feel Samsung at first copied the IPhone but it changed over time tk thier own product they just usied as inspiration thats what cmpetion does and leads do innovation aka the Galaxy S3. I don't think it took away from the sales and Apple is just trying to destroy the competion now that the Galaxy S3 is the ish phone. Apple is only gaining more money and hurting their OWN consumers and competetors. They cant accuse Samsung when they havnt done anything innovative in the last 3 years with the same IPhone. I really do hope apple gets a taste of thier own much deserved bulls**t back from Google/Motorolla. I jusg hope Samsung recovers from this embarssing trial and me as a consumer doesn't get affected causes I love my Galaxy S3 and the android operating system.
9. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Why this "explanation"through press ... is it a issue of "guilty conscience pricks the mind" or Apple is just trying to be a lord of Torts?
It had to be Apple from Day 1 ... that's because jingoism prevalied over natural justice and this is not the first time that it is happening.
11. RangersK (Posts: 59; Member since: 15 May 2012)
Looks like they didn't give a s**t about the prior art.
12. Aeires (unregistered)
Won't be the same type of trial in the appeals process, Samsung won't make the mistake of not filing papers on time when it goes to retrial. Seriously doubt there will be ridiculous time limits on cross examination either. Next time out of the gate they'll have the experience of what to do and what to ask, should be interesting.
15. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Not sure why and how they goofed up on this. Wasn't the legal team the one that GOOG uses for Patent trials?
52. roscuthiii (Posts: 1720; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
My only guess at this would be that the legal team thought the obviousness of prior art and natural evolutionary product progression based on the technology available would have been, well... for lack of a better term, obvious.
I guess not though. Here we see that yet again, rhetoric and razzle dazzle teamed up with a little bit of smoke n' mirrors is what wins the day.
I suppose we should just all be tickled that patent infringement didn't exist at the time the blade was invented, or the time the wheel was developed. Function determines form. Anyone with a blade will use it to cut, anyone with a wheel will roll it. Gee, I wonder what people would do with a touch screen?
54. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
no, these were samsung's laywers. Goog has a lawyer firm that it uses to handle patents back n forth and other communications to help manufacturers, but I dont believe they directly help in the court itself.
13. 14545 (Posts: 992; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
sooooo, all apple has to prove is that every smartphone on the market has a "flat screen" and a "bezel" for apple to get billions from them too. Even though APPLE MAKES NOTHING. THEY MAKE NO HARDWARE WHATSOEVER. So, yeah, sounds like a just decision. (rollseyes.)
41. Commentator (Posts: 2184; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
Whether they produce the hardware themselves or not doesn't matter, that Apple designed it is what matters. This would make perfect sense if you thought about it for 30 seconds...
66. 14545 (Posts: 992; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Awesome, so when I came up with the design for magnetically adjustable shock, two years before GM, I guess I should be entitled to 1.05 billion. No, I didn't PRODUCE anything, so I shouldn't be entitled to anything. Maybe you should think about it for 30 seconds. Maybe you should ACTUALLY read what is written. Then you would realize that APPLE WON because of a "Flat screen" and "bezel". That's straight from the horses mouth. If that is all it takes to "infringe", then there isn't a smartphone maker out there that is safe now. (IOW, beyond android) As allllllll NEW SMARTPHONES MADE IN THE LAST 5 years have a "FLAT SCREEN AND BEZEL". So I guess HTC, Moto, Nokia, and EVEN RIM(one of the true pioneers of the "smartphone") are all "infringing" on apples patents? Please stop with the fanboyism and learn to look outside your narrow scope. All patents(in general) do is harm innovation. And, as samsung pointed out, this ruling is a HUGE loss for EVERY consumer.
14. ajac09 (Posts: 1213; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
I bet phone arena and gizmodo where both there handing out dollar bills to each juror to.
28. -box- (Posts: 3568; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Gizmodo, sure (especially sam biddle, whose report last night seemed surprisingly professional and not full of his usual pro-apple bias), PA not as much... You have relatively rational folks like Michael H and Victor (and a few others) that balance the remaining ones out.
16. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
If this all goes as it goes there are no innovations where anyone can patent pinch-to-zoom.....it is like a patent of hand-brake in cars.....
Sick from US minds
19. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
Apple they are very good at presentation/marketing and psychology. It was easy for them to fight this lawsuit using their skills. The sad thing is that now many Android OEM are at risks.
23. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
All the competition is in risk if there are such rotten companies abusing patent system like Apple and Microsoft
26. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
No system (patent or otehrwise) should be above "Public Interest" in true democracy.
43. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
IMO No Risk in China the largest market for mobile users and India. Apple offcially slid down to 4rth position from 2nd in China. All Risks are in US and allies of US where court judgments can be influenced to be on same path as it happens in US more out of jingoism. Samsung leads in both markets and would continue to do so. What this battle has done is it has projected Samsung as a company which can take on the might of Apple. So not a bad campaign for advertisement if one looks at this from that perspective Apple devices in India subsidised through carrier on 2 yr contract failed to take off. People here hate being tied down to such contracts and they want freedom to switch anytime to any other carrier.
Apple will just play these street side sniper shot games and say they are fighting a thermonuclear war against Android. Bull crap. How much of 1.05 billion was for trade dress? Trade dress crap has nothing to do with Android ... M$ tried to kill LINUX ... did it die? M$ was shouting from rooftop about patent violations in LINUX and it was LINUS who had the guts to say open your source and then we will show you how much you have violated and copied from everywhere ... Google needs to balance the books now ... :)
20. RangersK (Posts: 59; Member since: 15 May 2012)
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. 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," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
31. RangersK (Posts: 59; Member since: 15 May 2012)
34. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
I can not believe they skipped 100% argument for invalidating the patent....SHOCKING!
76. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
It was me but it was a misstap :) I can not correct that
39. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Not sure why are they justifying things in so much of a detail and saying things like see we did reject some Apple claims. Something's fishy and it's very apparent.
32. -box- (Posts: 3568; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
"...I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
Did these yahoos have big weekend plans or something? Or was the $12/day (or whatever) cutting into their lives too much?
21. Zayuh24 (Posts: 148; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
This is what makes me sick from this court case... Look at all of Samsung's early smartphones that were unsuccessful because of a mediocre OS. That's why they hid their "rectangular shaped devices" until after the iPhone release because they weren't sure if the world was ready for a fully-featured device. Then, how is it at all possible to have a patent on a shape? EVERY SMARTPHONE (besides the Nexus) LOOKS THE SAME! My LG G2X looks a lot like the HTC Incredible because they're both the same rectangular shape and black screen. The majority of Apple's patents are common-sense bull.... If you have to look at it from the facts you are given, yes, Samsung copied a rectangular shape with a touch screen as well as every other carrier around because shapes are generic. Goodbye competition, hello monopoly (until the appeal)
25. rusticguy (Posts: 2811; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
It's a NEXUS between Apple and M$ which is at play. They want control of entire mobile world. They have collaborated in past and they are doing it now. First target is home ground ...
33. -box- (Posts: 3568; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Not so sure about Microsoft... They currently make more money from Android than Windows Phone. Just sayin'
29. tedkord (Posts: 3939; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
This shows the jurors lack of understanding. His smoking gun didn't exist. There was not a single email that discussed what features to copy. In fact, the only email that even discussed copying specifically said to NOT copy.
The good news is that appeals are coming, and they will likely be decided by a panel of judges who have some understanding of patent law, so a good portion of the verdict will likely be invalidated.
30. SGSatlantis (Posts: 205; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)
If it was so obvious from day one that Samsung harmed Apples sales, why the F they kept it going for so long. Also f**k Apple
44. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
how do you harm the sales of a company that cant keep its product in stock from too much demand?
67. SGSatlantis (Posts: 205; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)
It turns out that by selling your own phones. It's called competition and Apple doesn't like it.