If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Groklaw)   Apple v. Samsung jury awarded damages on products it found non-infringing, ignored judge's instructions, ignored prior art because "it was bogging us down"   (groklaw.net) divider line 132
    More: Followup, Galaxy Tab, page zooming, factual basis, jury instructions, flat panel displays, Samsung Electronics, court officials, patent infringements  
•       •       •

5474 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Aug 2012 at 4:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 12:59:27 PM  
Keep f**kin' that chicken, losers.
 
2012-08-26 01:07:50 PM  
And yet I'd still choose Samsung over Apple if I'm actually going to be paying for my electronics.
 
2012-08-26 01:10:56 PM  

bingethinker: Keep f**kin' that chicken, losers.


FTFA- 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." ...


He's saying that they literally IGNORED Samsung's argument that a number of patents never should have been awarded to Apple in the first place, so they could get to the "good part" (award Apple money for infringement of those patents) faster.
 
2012-08-26 01:28:36 PM  
I'm still buying a Galaxy SIII. I really doubt iPhone 5 will be different enough from the piece of crap that is the 4S for me to even consider it.
 
2012-08-26 02:22:27 PM  
It must have been hard to find 12 people that thought a rectangle with rounded corners was innovative and non-obvious.
 
2012-08-26 02:39:09 PM  
I have no idea if juror's statements are admissible in an appeal, but if they are, Samsung has some hefty ammo there.
 
2012-08-26 03:01:03 PM  
A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of people too dumb to get out of jury duty.
 
2012-08-26 03:02:29 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: And yet I'd still choose Samsung over Apple if I'm actually going to be paying for my electronics.


Good choice. There's no way that could end badly.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3243546/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-re v iew
 
2012-08-26 03:06:35 PM  
...Just on my OWN experience being in a jury pool earlier this year, this is a fustercluck of epic proportions...and that's NOT even including the wacky hijinks of the magistrate judge that the main judge overruled O_o

Samsung has a HELL of a case for appeal, at any rate :D
 
2012-08-26 04:12:39 PM  
I was laptop shopping this summer. I wanted something nice for my gad program. The Mac with the specs I wanted was $2300. I found a non-Mac option that had better specs and was $1700. I went with a Samsung that had everything I needed (not everything I wanted) for $700.

I *really* like Mac products, but the price tag never fits in my experience. Also, they're a bunch of litigious prima donnas.
 
2012-08-26 04:15:17 PM  
Actually, they're all overly litigious, but that doesn't help my purchase decision
 
2012-08-26 04:20:14 PM  
These Apple vs. Samsung threads and just as stupid as Ravens vs. Steelers ones, only the rooting interests are more arbitrary and people spout off while knowing even less about technology and law than they know about football.
 
2012-08-26 04:28:09 PM  

bingethinker: Keep f**kin' that chicken, losers.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-26 04:36:34 PM  
Yeah, it seemed suspicious when they came back so quickly in such a complex case.

This will be appealed, and it will either be overturned or remanded back to the lower court. There is no way in hell this decision will stand with this level of jury malfeasance.
 
2012-08-26 04:44:10 PM  

kingoomieiii: bingethinker: Keep f**kin' that chicken, losers.

FTFA- 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." ...

He's saying that they literally IGNORED Samsung's argument that a number of patents never should have been awarded to Apple in the first place, so they could get to the "good part" (award Apple money for infringement of those patents) faster.


In other news: Apple will be expanding it's manufacturing business (and taxes associated with it) in S Korea. This is in no way connected to the fixing of the trial, including the judges barring of the most crucial aspect to samsung's case.
 
2012-08-26 04:46:43 PM  
It was not too much worry when the typical jury would have to rule on a case of:

"did jack slam mary in the face with a hammer?" Exhibit A: This hammer. Exhibit B: Mary's face Exhibit C: This dude who saw Jack slam Mary in the face with a Hammer. Now, go and make your decision.

Today, with the advanced court cases full of expert witnesses, technical documentation, advanced scientific evidence, thousand-page contracts and patents to review, etc, its hard to expect Jim-Bob to completely understand what is going on. I know, its the lawyers job to get the message across, but its still too much sometimes.
 
2012-08-26 04:49:35 PM  
Can't we all just agree this is absurd and that the patent system in this country is pathetically broken, without resorting to rooting for one logo over the other?

Everything I own is Apple. My phone, tablet, computer, server, router... everything. And I could give a fark if Samsung also has the nifty little bounce back thingy when you scroll to the end of a page. And I could give even more farks about your devices and how they engage with your life. Your phone has little blinky LEDs that convey a variety of messages? Thats great! I don't want that shiat, but I am glad you do. We can all get along. Rounded corners so as to be comfortable while held? Space for human fingers around the edges of a tablet? It's like if the first person to ever use red paint claimed the sole ability to do so.

Technology and humanity is in the middle of merging into a single being. I find that far more interesting than brand loyalty and pissing matches.
 
2012-08-26 04:51:46 PM  
FTFJ: " "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." ..

They didn't skip prior art they spent a long time on a single patent and couldn't reach a decision so they moved on to other ones before coming back to it.
 
2012-08-26 04:57:12 PM  
This is a good day for the lawyers.
 
2012-08-26 04:58:07 PM  

kingoomieiii: He's saying that they literally IGNORED Samsung's argument that a number of patents never should have been awarded to Apple in the first place, so they could get to the "good part" (award Apple money for infringement of those patents) faster.


Could that really have been determined in this case though? IANAL, but it seems that they'd have to base the judgement on the patents as they exist, not whether or not the patents should have been awarded in the first place.

(Not trying to defend patent trolling, just wondering how the jury could have come to a different conclusion.)
 
2012-08-26 04:58:37 PM  
The appeal on this is going to have so much crap to wade through that Apple's market share will be a joke by the time it's wrapped up. You just can't legislate your way to victory in such a rapid market; all you can do is screw up the market for future potential competitors.
 
2012-08-26 05:00:49 PM  
I remember my one experience being on a jury, it was for a pretty simple drunk driving case. The majority of my fellow jurors were total morons who couldn't understand any argument based on the merits of that argument. A few were so dumb I wondered how they managed to dress themselves every morning. I can't imagine how much of a total clusterfark it must be to serve on a jury where the case is complicated.
 
2012-08-26 05:01:00 PM  
Epic grounds for an appeal, the jury could not have loused it up any more than they did .
 
2012-08-26 05:05:48 PM  

vartian: Can't we all just agree this is absurd and that the patent system in this country is pathetically broken, without resorting to rooting for one logo over the other?

Everything I own is Apple. My phone, tablet, computer, server, router... everything. And I could give a fark if Samsung also has the nifty little bounce back thingy when you scroll to the end of a page. And I could give even more farks about your devices and how they engage with your life. Your phone has little blinky LEDs that convey a variety of messages? Thats great! I don't want that shiat, but I am glad you do. We can all get along. Rounded corners so as to be comfortable while held? Space for human fingers around the edges of a tablet? It's like if the first person to ever use red paint claimed the sole ability to do so.

Technology and humanity is in the middle of merging into a single being. I find that far more interesting than brand loyalty and pissing matches.


Agreed. I'm no big fan of Apple (in part because of their strongarm tactics), but that's subsidiary to the bigger question of intellectual property in general (patents, copyrights, etc.) becoming bigger, and broader, and more powerful. We are watching our culture being stolen from us by the corporations, piece by piece, and a good number of us cheer them on as they do it.
 
2012-08-26 05:06:35 PM  
The core problem is that they admitted to using damages/rewards as a form of punishment rather than compensation for the plaintiff. That's plainly against the rules, and even Tim Cook was reported as dissatisfied by this jury for such shenanigans.
 
2012-08-26 05:08:20 PM  
How long until we find out that some or all of the people on this jury suddenly have Apple stock options to cash in?
 
2012-08-26 05:15:37 PM  
www.mememaker.net
 
2012-08-26 05:16:03 PM  
The jury foreman is a known patent troll, he patend the DVR in 2008, years after the TIVO and other DVRS on the market, so he has a personal interest in farking over the patent system.
 
2012-08-26 05:18:07 PM  
The most critical group in the legal process is also the most neglected; the jury. They are given basically zero resources and yet they're entrusted to render the final decision (and they have no stake in the outcome so a totally botched job costs them nothing).
 
2012-08-26 05:19:17 PM  
So people with this level of IQ are allowed to decide a billion dollar lawsuit? That system is soooooooo broken. At least when this gets to the Supreme Court there'll be a group of professional judges giving it proper consideration.
 
2012-08-26 05:20:36 PM  

Carth: FTFJ: " "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." ..

They didn't skip prior art they spent a long time on a single patent and couldn't reach a decision so they moved on to other ones before coming back to it.


They didn't spend "a long time" on a single patent. fark, they didn't spend "a long time" on the decision as a whole.
 
2012-08-26 05:26:52 PM  

theflatline: The jury foreman is a known patent troll, he patend the DVR in 2008, years after the TIVO and other DVRS on the market, so he has a personal interest in farking over the patent system.


How the fark did samsungs counsel allow that? What are the odds of THAT guy even being in the jury pool in the first place?
 
2012-08-26 05:29:18 PM  
Honest question. If the judge can say "Jurors, at no point during deliberations did any of you have what could be considered a rational thought," and throw out the verdict, why bother with the jury in the first place? Seems the best case scenario is that they don't screw things up too badly, when all they should be able to do is say guilty or not guilty, then hand off damages to an expert.
 
2012-08-26 05:34:27 PM  

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: theflatline: The jury foreman is a known patent troll, he patend the DVR in 2008, years after the TIVO and other DVRS on the market, so he has a personal interest in farking over the patent system.

How the fark did samsungs counsel allow that? What are the odds of THAT guy even being in the jury pool in the first place?


I would guess that Samsungs counsel is smarter than Apples counsel, and knew they could appeal with this guy as the jury foreman.
 
2012-08-26 05:34:49 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: still choose


too bad once apple has had their way in the court of i-fanboi-jury-opinion, they will have purchased a device monopoly in this country

we're farked
 
2012-08-26 05:35:33 PM  
Originally I doubted that this would get appealed, but it certainly looks like that could easily happen now.
 
2012-08-26 05:37:14 PM  
And this is why a patent trial by jury is the worst thing you can ever have.
 
2012-08-26 05:43:27 PM  

JohnnyC: Originally I doubted that this would get appealed, but it certainly looks like that could easily happen now.


It was going to get appealed no matter what, this just makes it a bit easier for Samsung.
 
2012-08-26 05:45:16 PM  

theflatline: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: theflatline: The jury foreman is a known patent troll, he patend the DVR in 2008, years after the TIVO and other DVRS on the market, so he has a personal interest in farking over the patent system.


The bigger issue is that the jury apparently relied on his accounts/statements regarding the patent process. Jurors are allowed on rely on their own life experiences, education, etc. but it sounds like they were treating this as expert testimony. He said "x" and the jury said "oh, okay", let's go on to damages then.
 
2012-08-26 05:48:02 PM  

kindasketchy: The bigger issue is that the jury apparently relied on his accounts/statements regarding the patent process. Jur


That's one issue, that Samsung for some reason wasn't allowed to present a lot of evidence that would defend them is another one.
 
2012-08-26 05:48:25 PM  
Not really a surprise when a case this complex is decided by jury.
 
2012-08-26 05:55:35 PM  
What a $1,000,000,000 "idea" might look like.

cairographics.org
 
2012-08-26 05:59:04 PM  

WhyteRaven74: kindasketchy: The bigger issue is that the jury apparently relied on his accounts/statements regarding the patent process. Jur

That's one issue, that Samsung for some reason wasn't allowed to present a lot of evidence that would defend them is another one.


I agree that there appear to be many reasons why the verdict will be overturned, but that statement is about as close to jurors saying "we ignored the jury instructions and relied on outside evidence" as you're ever going to get and it was on a critical issue.

/not disagreeing, just explaining my prior statement
 
2012-08-26 06:02:38 PM  

tallen702: And this is why a patent trial by jury is the worst thing you can ever have.


I'd say it's the best thing you can have. It's a check against laws becoming too complicated for laymen to follow.
 
2012-08-26 06:11:20 PM  
Apple is claiming that rounded corners are a design patent? Rounded corners are on almost every flat rectangular thing made, especially if it's made from injection molded plastic as rounded corners make it easier to make the part (without having flaws).
 
2012-08-26 06:16:34 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: kingoomieiii: bingethinker: Keep f**kin' that chicken, losers.

FTFA- 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." ...

He's saying that they literally IGNORED Samsung's argument that a number of patents never should have been awarded to Apple in the first place, so they could get to the "good part" (award Apple money for infringement of those patents) faster.

In other news: Apple will be expanding it's manufacturing business (and taxes associated with it) in S Korea. This is in no way connected to the fixing of the trial, including the judges barring of the most crucial aspect to samsung's case.


If the fix was in, then the jurors really farked things over.

[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2012-08-26 06:17:42 PM  

basemetal: A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of people too dumb to get out of jury duty.


It sounds to me like Apple did really well with jury selection. The two jurors who have spoken about this have basically admitted they went into the process favoring Apple and ignoring Samsung's arguments. A benefit of Apple's US market dominance, perhaps? The prior art argument was really something fundamental as well; not only has touch-screen stuff been around for almost 20 years, but phones in Japan and Korea have had functions US consumers think of as "Apple" innovations since the late 90s. The iPhone only seemed like such a revelation to us because the monopoly power of US telecoms kept most of those features out of the US for almost a decade.
 
2012-08-26 06:18:55 PM  

basemetal: A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of people too dumb to get out of jury duty.


Keep in mind that lawyers want people with little or no prior knowledge of a subject because they can bring in their own preconceived ideas. In short, they want laymen.

The foreman is interesting because he did exactly that, and it sounds as if he drove the jury. We can only speculate why Samsung's lawyers didn't move to exclude him from the jury. Maybe they exhausted their limit.
 
2012-08-26 06:19:13 PM  

Befuddled: Apple is claiming that rounded corners are a design patent? Rounded corners are on almost every flat rectangular thing made, especially if it's made from injection molded plastic as rounded corners make it easier to make the part (without having flaws).


And their touch sensing technology has been around for almost 10 years, and was invented by other people.
 
2012-08-26 06:22:27 PM  

grimlock1972: Epic grounds for an appeal, the jury could not have loused it up any more than they did .


"...and we award Apple 200 chickens, a goat, and half a pound of head lice."
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report