Jury foreman in Apple-Samsung patent case answers back
In its filing requesting a new trial, Samsung says that Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate connection to the court was an issue that Samsung should have been "able to explore" and suggested that Hogan lied in order to obtain a seat on the jury. In a phone interview conducted this week, Hogan said that he considered it "an honor" to have been selected for the jury because of his 40 years as an electrical engineer. As for his failure to disclose the bankruptcy and connection to Seagate, Hogan said that the questions asked him to go back ten years and all of those issues occurred out of that time frame. "I answered every question the judge asked me," Hogan said, adding that Samsung "had every opportunity to question me." The 67 year-old also said that he was surprised that Samsung didn't know about his relationship with Seagate considering he has a relationship with an attorney from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm that represented Samsung in the law suit.
During deliberations, other jurors admitted that Hogan used his knowledge of patent law to guide them through the process of obtaining a patent. He had worked with attorneys over seven years to obtain patents on his "video-compression software". With Hogan and the rest of the jury deciding to ignore all of the prior art testimony presented by Samsung, Apple was awarded $1.05 billion, a sum that still could be tripled by Judge Lucy Koh following a December 6th hearing. In the meantime, the judge will have to decide if Hogan's connections and his incorrect use of legal standards as alleged by Samsung, are enough to throw out the verdict and order a new trial. If Judge Koh refuses to side with Samsung, the Korean manufacturer will most likely head to appellate court with all of this information.
1. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Prior art doesn't exist in this dispute. Samsung obviously and shamelessly copied Apple and got rich.
4. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Yes, I hunt them. You can see captured fanboys on small red numbers with thumb down over my comment.
55. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
You just lose your mind? Why the sudden rage? We all know that there will be more lawsuits from apple and the war is far from over.
So you can save yourself the kamazaki!
10. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
There was a Braun smartphone and tablet back in 60's?
18. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
There was a Fiddler Tablet in the early 90s. Care to guess what present day tablet looks exactly like it?
48. HowMyDictate (Posts: 18; Member since: 18 Jun 2012)
Seems you dont......So let me speak so that you understand BBAAAHHHH BBAA BBAAAAHHH
49. BattleBrat (Posts: 853; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)
ROFL HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
That was AWESOME!,
On topic; I think this Jury foreman was a Joke, I heard he got hot under the collar when it came to prior art, I bet some of his "inventions" weren't made by him.
6. Droiddoes (unregistered)
After apple obviously and shamelessly copied the LG Prada. Funny how you iDrones always forget or fail to mention that.
8. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I haven't see LG Prada revolutionized the Industry to be something that needed to be copied.
12. Droiddoes (unregistered)
Doesn't matter. They were the first. That's like saying that because the Ford Model-T is laughable by todays standards that it was irrelevant and didn't revolutionize transportation.
25. shayan (Posts: 124; Member since: 09 Sep 2010)
becuase they are not evil, and they have common sense.
26. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4723; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
LG isn't Sammy. Why LG did or did not sue Apple is not material to Sammy's litigation with Apple.
34. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Maybe LG is not in need. For example Nokia is one of the biggest mobile patents holder but Nokia doesn't sue everyone around. And believe Nokia has more reasonable patens than Apple's "rounded corners". If Nokia was in need, believe Nokia would find what to sue.
43. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
You ask why LG didn't sue Apple?.
Prior to APPLE bring their posion MAC mentality; we had a very good community of Manuf working together and competing to usher in the Mobile world.
Even MS was behaving nicely with others.
Now look at it..ALL THIS HATE and LAWYERS stuff, thank you APPLE!!!!!!
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4723; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Prior art doesn't need to revolutionize an industry to be prior art. It just has to pre-date the other art.
15. Jobes (Posts: 364; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)
So now something has to revolutionize the industry to be copied? I was unaware that is a prerequisite.
19. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
No, it's a crime motif.
One does not simply copy anything. Only what is successful.
29. Jobes (Posts: 364; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)
So its impossible for Apple to have perhaps... "borrowed" design cues and look and feel of say.. an unsuccessful phone? Is it so far fetched to say Apple also borrowed from other companies design cues? I'm not trolling just curious. And not only "successful" things are copied.. id assume if its something someone liked then its worth copying. Apple might not have liked the OS on the phone but liked general style and took cues. Keep an open mind I am doing the same.
35. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
iPhone is a natural continuation of Dieter Rams inspiration, a hybrid between retro style of Rams and Apple's design language nurtured and developed for years.
Final product came somewhat similar to LG Prada, but this was only due to the fact that basic shape was way too generic. Other than that, LG Prada is not even close in terms of design when we look on execution of final form.
Now, most people take this "generic" argument to say that Samsung also had generic shape, but this reduction is never what this trial was about. Samsung copied the fundamental visual structure od iPhone, the logic itself, not just basic shape. Arguments with "rounded rectangles" are childish at least.
After all, it all comes down to what institutiolized authority one has for proper judgment. I'm professional industrial designer specialized for Apple. And who are the general masses that blame Apple? Just people without skill in design and aesthetics, and especially without knowledge of US design patent system.
The jury made the right decision, everything else is just a legal procedure, wrongly or correctly conducted and executed, I don't care for final outcome.
40. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"Samsung copied the fundamental visual structure od iPhone, the logic itself, not just basic shape."
If it is not because of shape, then could you please explain more detailed what forms as you say: "fundamental visual structure of iPhone" ?
Also what exactly according to you Samsung has copied?
63. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
It's hard to explain this to a non-expert. However you deserve it.
iPhone (4) is designed in seemingly simple form that resembles rounded rectangle with metallic edge tape. However the details like chamfered edges, distances and relation is something unique in approach of all mobile industry before that. The thought process that brough Apple to the design of iPhone 4 has a long history of development. iPhone is designed as an icon, that is, as something which is not designed. Everything is carefully balanced not to make the "decorative" redundant form which is a ususal approach.
That said, the design expert can easily trace this "no-design" philosophy and make logical connection of Apple's design evolution. In this evolution, it becomes clear that similarity between iPhone and LG Prada immidately stops, because it's a dead end. The similarity exists only on superficial level for non-experts that cannot visually represent to themselves the process of shaping a product and logic that underlies beneath.
For a design expert there is no dilemma: LG Prada is not copied. It's just a coincidence this generic form came similar on this superficial level.
This superficiality is now used as a contra-argument by Samsung fanboys. They only see superficial dimension of basic shape, and derive so called "reductio ad absurdum" argument that everything that has circle in its basic form shoul be a copy of wheel etc. Only idiot would go this far with perversion of logic, and it seems that there are many idiots out there.
On the other hand, the question of whether Samsung has "copied" Apple in the same sense is very different.
Samsung Galsaxy S also resembles iPhone (3G) on a superficial level, however that's where design expert will see something absent in the case of iPhone and LG Prada - he will see the intention.
Intention, the motif, the non-coincidence.
Because it's not about superficial basic shape. It's about structural logic (relations of shape, user-interface with all the important details etc.) that incorporates similarity with iPhone *on purpose*, and design expert can never trace the chain of thought that would prove otherwise, i.e. that design Samsung Galaxy S was pre-dating iPhone. Instead, it becomes clear that Samsung has copied this logic, and investigation of design evolution process could easily prove that Samsung design was DERIVED from iPhone's. So iPhone design was not an inspiration, but a mold.
The difference between the two is very thin for inexperienced eye, but for design expert the difference is huge. Their origin is fundamentally different.
So the final product of Samsung was a device that didn't want to be exactly the same copy of iPhone, but it wanted to resemble it (by changing Android to this level of conformity with the shape on purpose!) so that buyer could interpret it as a cheaper but better alternative.
So they got rich, because they offered better iPhone than iPhone.
64. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
And of course, one of the key questions of every trial is the question of whether there was a motif.
Apple did not have the motif to copy LG. LG Prada is actually poorly designed phone.
And it was a market flop. Apple was already conquering the world with iPhone 3G/S, and thay didn't need LG for that. For that matter, iPhone could have looked like anything, it would still be successful.
On the other hand, Samsung did have the motif. For years before Galaxy S, they were desperate. They were rich, alright, but then it was Nokia also rich.
They choose the unfair road: to copy iPhone and to gain momentum for later success. Because this subsequent success of Samsung is not based on their devices per se, but on cultural signification as something opposed to that manipulative Apple, and they succeded precisely because they were based on similarity that coudl be read in the public as a competition.
So Samsung has gone sky high after amsung Galaxy S, and this is the real reason why Galaxy SII was eveen more successful (and didnt need to be copied anymore), and now we see the final result in Samsung Galaxy SIII that now makes Samsung the real threat to Apple because they copied their ideas.
Also, when we are talking about motifs, Samsung has proved to be copying Apple on myriads of other examples, so when we combine all this, we have the case.
But the most fascinating thing are masses of Samsung fanboys, that are now stupid and blind like Apple fanboys, reducing the logic to absurd levels, popping out of every corner of Internet mediasphere, to cheer for Samsung as the good guy (they probably don't know how mob-like this company is in South Korea), spreading the hatred towrds Apple. Those are real religious wars, just in virtual world. And I love to play with it.
73. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
I have read what you wrote and I can tell what I think - You just want to look like an "expert" but your talks are just a pouring from empty to full of holes and nothing more...
78. predator93 (Posts: 117; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)
I think LG Prada was fairly successful, It was never aimed at people who wanted functionality it was a typical prada product. The main reason Prada choose LG to make that phone was due to the success of the chocolate. LG went on to make more fashion (black label) phones like shine, secret and new chocolates which had much better functionality. Those were the days, Nokia always had the best phone for me.
I don't think apple copied Prada though, the iphone was released at almost the same time. Considering the technology involved in designing the iphone i don't think they would have copied and implemented all within the year. Iam also sure iphone would have used a capacitive screen even if prada hadn't been released.
Whether Samsung copied or not banning a product is not a solution, it is a loss for us to not have choices so it is better if all these things get settled outside the court.
72. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"It's hard to explain this to a non-expert."
Don't think that you are the smartes person on www.phonearena.com and indirectly don't call other people stupid!
77. downphoenix (Posts: 1987; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
"So they got rich, because they offered better iPhone than iPhone"
61. kach22 (Posts: 99; Member since: 04 Nov 2011)
Trying so hard to fool people around. Well it's not working. You can only fool who are apple followers with inflated self image.
By the way do you know you are beginning to sound very desparate and pathetic trying to fight a lost cause.
32. Aeires (unregistered)
Wow, what a closed minded statement. You should look up the word "copy" in the dictionary. It doesn't mention anything about the level of success the original has.
36. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"One does not simply copy anything. Only what is successful."
Based on assumptions.
42. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Your statement about popularity and copy was only assumption which was based on theory but that doesn't prove that it is 100% true it is still only assumption.
60. predator93 (Posts: 117; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)
Most of your comments used to make sense, but definitely no this one. Unsuccessful ideas can also be copied and made successful. Most of the touchscreen phones before Iphone were unsuccessful that didn't stop Apple from making a touch screen phone.
67. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Yes, but there is nothing in common with touchscreen phones before iPhone and iPhone.
It looks like that only if you are reducing the smarpthone on the fact that it has touchscreen. Reduction is never good, you need to look at the big picture, the whole.
Apple did not copied anything. They used existing technologies and concepts to make something entirely new and irreducible to previous solutions.
76. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"Yes, but there is nothing in common with touchscreen phones before iPhone and iPhone."
27. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4723; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
It doesn't have to revolutionize an industry. The revolutionize an industry issue is just a red herring that AppleConspiracy is throwing out to confuse things.
56. someones4 (Posts: 607; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
You are arguing with steve jobs himself. how can you win?
20. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
It didn't matter if it revolutionized the industry, according to patent and trade dress law, if it resisted prior, future patents and trade dress are null.
31. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Your statement is only assumption. Maybe LG Prada doesn't revolutionized the Industry but that doesn't proves that LG Prada wasn't copied!
38. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Check one of my posts above this one.
44. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Checked and still any actual proofs only assumption.
53. Hemlocke (unregistered)
WTF? You do realize that Apple filed with the FCC in 2006 for the original iPhone and had been working on it for three years by the time they unveiled it? That's some good copying, especially for a company that wasn't even in the mobile industry at the time. Why do you think LG never filed a lawsuit, after initially threatening? They found out that the iPhone patents predated the Prada.
66. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I didn't even know that. I was presuming such a thing, because it's obvious from the design language of iPhone itself.
11. wolstenbeast (Posts: 25; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
To Quote Charles d**kens!
The Jury was directed by the Judge to consider the prior art defense (the most commonly used defense in patent litigation), Hogan steered the jury away from considering this aspect of Samsung's defense. Whether this was maliciously done, or simply an act of unmitigated hubris on Hogan's behalf will always be a matter of speculation.
However, his comments re he answered all questions asked, is disingenuous at the very least, because all jurors were asked to fully disclose any information that may lead cause to doubt impartiality (standard jury briefing question).
If Hogan believes that his prior contact with Samsung's subsidiary, was not a factor himself, he was still oath bound to declare it and allow the litigants to argue his suitability as a juror.
Hogan is continuing to provide more and more ammunition to Samsung, every time he opens his mouth.
28. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
"Samsung obviously and shamelessly copied Apple and got rich."
Samsung was rich even before smartphones era.
33. Aeires (unregistered)
45. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Your statement was that Samsung has copied Apple and become rich. My statement was that Samsung was rich even before smartphones era. What Nokia has to do with these two statements?
Remember that Samsung is based not only on phones so I'm pretty sure that your statement about who was richer Samsung or Nokia is wrong.
65. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Nokia was rich that no one could predict they will go down to the ground in just two years.
That's because they didn't want to copy Apple.
It is the faith of almost all who tried to be different (HTC, SonyEricsson, BB...).
Because iPhone was the only percievable smartphone of the time, and competition did not have the true answer yet. Android was far from perfect, and Samsung has decided to go with the copy. It paid off.
So, I think Samsung should get even greater punishment.
1 bilion is not enough. They made incomparably larger profits with this copying of Apple. This copying was still a good decision, even with this fine. So the fine should be even greater, to make them think about copying again.
Of course Apple is damaged.
68. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yes, apple the worlds most profitable company is damaged by samsung's use of rounded rectangles. Can you please prove that? Even Apple couldnt actually prove it. Their argument was that every SGS1 was a sale for an iphone, but the buyer was confused. I have an SGS1 and I used to sell tons of them. Not one person was confused and thought it was an iPhone.
70. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Of course. The argument of "confused buyer" does not make any sense.
No one was confused. However, it was something there that is invisible to most people.
Samsung has become "visible" with iPhone resemblance. If they just provided the better phone, they wouldn't be visible. But with copying iPhone, they could actually be percieved as worthy competition.
You need to understand how buyers' brains work (although you think that you know, but I meant on general scale of mass market, not individual). For them, it was the iPhone that is better and cheaper than iPhone, they were never confused, but the galaxy S belonged to same paradigm of iPhone. It was "visible" in most abstract sense.
Now, it's not a problem. Two years from then masses have developed a no-iPhone sense of competition. Thing don't have to look like iPhone anymore to be visible. The new paradigm of Android had emerged.
Apple is damaged, alright. It's not so visible now, but i t will be. Events that are taking place are here becuse Samsung initially copied Apple and constituted itself as a cult value, that has its trace only now, not then.
It's not important that they are now the richest company in the world. The point is that competition could eventually endanger them because of momentum generated back then, and that was something illegal. Just please don't initiate "they deserved it" argument, because it's irrelevant for this case.
74. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Didn't answered to my question, again just a pouring from empty to full of holes and nothing more...
75. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
a guy with an apple icon arguing till the face turns blue about punishing samsung for copying apple but the article is not about samsung has wronged apple, its about whether the jury foreman is biased.
if he is not bias then i think the word "bias" require a new definition.
41. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)
talkin outta your a$$ as usual
52. structureman116 (Posts: 131; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)
Haha...clearly you are an apple fanboy...yon can't think for yourself...you only think what Apple tells you to think. Clearly there was prior art and clearly you're an idiot!
57. weinerslav (Posts: 121; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)
Dear mr. Appleconspiracy, you broke my heart today, I actually tought you where a really inteligent person that usually makes brilliant comments, aparenty I was wrong, you're just another one in the apple team. Prior art? It obviously exist, the prada affair? I'm sorry, I tought we where talking about revolution and not trends and sales numbers, the first iphone wasn't that different in terms of funcionality... And about the ads... apple started it, against microsoft, so why everybody feels that now is dirty because samsung does it too? And so on... I'm sorry but unfortunatelly I was wrong, you're really just another one...
69. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 626; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Sorry to dissapoint you. I came here two years ago and everytime I said Apple is manipulative company I was bombed with criticism. Now it seems I was wrong. The mass is manipulated by forces that don't belong to Apple or anything else, and because of this forces I'm now called to defend Apple. Because in this particular point Samsung was wrong. The rest is overblown, and fanboys are everywhere - and they are now defined as Apple haters. They learned what media told them, and now it is the message that Apple is evil. And everyone who defends Apple's attitudes is now quilty. It look like a medieval age, when paesants went wild with torches on someone who looked like a witch. This is the ultimate mechanics of mediasphere.