Apple v. Samsung foreman gets more things wrong; the more he talks, the worse it gets for the verdict

“This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict,” Groklaw reports.

Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it,” Groklaw reports. “And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn’t their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.”

Groklaw reports, “That is so wrong it’s not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question. The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can’t be infringed… One thing is for sure, this is going to be one fascinating appeal.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Regardless, the verdict is correct because Samsung was clearly copying Apple and trading on their work as Apple’s lawyers proved with a mountain of evidence.

As we wrote last month: Apple created the modern day smartphone and taught the world what an iPhone is. This was not trivial, nor was it free.

The reason there are copies – of anything – is to take for free (steal) that which was paid for by the original maker: The R&D, the salary and perks of the world’s preeminent industrial designer [and his team], the education of the public through TV spots and a very expensive network of retail outlets, the hundreds of millions in online, print, television, etc. marketing, everything that goes into a product.

This why a maker of knockoff handbags makes Coach knockoffs, to trade on Coach’s work in order to move their fake wares without investing in the design, marketing, etc. This is why a maker of auto knockoffs makes BMW knockoffs. This is why Samsung knocked off iPhone. Samsung stole Apple’s work and they traded on Apple’s considerable investment. This is why the jury found Samsung guilty.

There is no market for paintings of Campbell’s soup cans without Warhol.

Making knockoffs isn’t flattery, it’s theft. It’s also an expression of companies’ disdain and low opinion of their own customers.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone


        1. Most likely the foreman has a swollen head, numb skull and loose lips — and is using this opportunity to grab his 15 minutes of fame.  Not so difficult to understand by someone in touch with basic human nature.

    1. The presumptions of juror misconduct by the author will not stand up. The instructions from Koh were based on recommendations submitted by Apple and Samsung. Not only were they read to the jury, each had a printed copy. Additionally the jury had to address nearly 300 written issues in their findings of guilty or not guilty. These were also crafted with input from Apple and Samsung.

      This is just another hit generator based on nothing.

  1. ugh. wish he would just shut up already…
    it’s obvious from the tab verdict that they didn’t know what they were doing… this just makes it worse. And talking to Jizzmodo? Christ….

      1. After reading some of the more lucid comments about the *actual law* (as opposed to made up Gizmodo law) below, I tend to agree with you. But a large part of Apple’s win is public opinion that Samsung are cheats and liars. This dude is not helping Apple’s case…

  2. They assume that the Forman is speaking the truth… He could have misunderstood the question from gizmodo or the instructions from the judge.

    Remember he’s just a juror, his qualifications to be there are just that he registered to vote.. And didn’t piss off either side in jury selection process.

  3. I can picture the lawyers for both side grinning ear ro ear. Giddy would be an understatement as their eyes glaze over dreaming of second and third trophy wives they xould buy with the inevitable long long process of billable hours.

  4. There is no “mistake” here …. a patent being “valid” is not the same as ” should it have been issued” the judges orders were to assume it is valid (ie legal and enforcible ) … Not should the patent officials have issued the patent… Troll nonsense at it’s worst…. Argue semantics as a misdirect of the ream issue…. Did they steal? Yes… Case closed.

    1. This is not going to help Samsung on appeal. I know Samsung thinks it will, but juries are *very* rarely dismissed outfight, what they find is generally taken as accepted fact. Appeals are more about whether the evidence presented was admissible, or whether there were procedural mistakes in the trial.

      Samsung can salivate all it wants, but its hopes on appeal are very slim, the Jury did a good job on this case, and looked at the fine details of what products were infringing what, and which weren’t. They were able to make a decision between a product that had a trade dress patent that was filed, and an “implied trade dress patent” which was not filed. Samsung has very little hope here.

    2. Thanks for saving me the typing.
      People who read “valid” to mean “justified” are obviously not working in the IT industry.
      Tons of “valid” things are stupid mistakes.
      Tons of “invalid” things are critical, right and commonly observed.
      Validity is such a charged term, esp. where Apple patents are concerned.
      Author of interview owes an explanation.

  5. Not sure what the issue is here. If there was an issue with the instructions that were given to the jurors, then Samsungs lawyers should have brought that up. Also, the appeals process will rehash all of this from top to bottom- I suspect that they’ll come to the same or similar conclusions. The actions by Samsung were very deliberate and egregious.

        1. There’s two court battles going on here. Apple’s won this round in the legal courts, but this foreman’s doing us no favours in the court of public opinion. It’s hard enough educating others against bullshit charges that this was all about rounded corners.

  6. MDN is 100% out to lunch on this one. I have posted several comments to the effect that the Jury verdict will be disposed of due to the Jury Foreman’s ambitions to be a star.
    What is missing here is a verdict from another Country that would support the American verdict in that this would alleviate the US DOJ’s need to get involved as the American verdict would of been in line with a verdict issued against Samsung in another Country.

    Listen, this is not rocket science as we all knew that the Court’s decision to only deal with Apple’s list of devices that they want banned in early December was an end run to avoid further complications with this verdict.

      1. You are one tough mother behind that keyboard aren’t you! Not sure if you are drunk or in need of professional help as no way do my comments solicit your response?

        This verdict is a big deal and if and I say if there are issues with the validity of the Patents in question then the verdict is suspect at best.

        Validate the Patents then go nuts. This said, if the Court missed this point then bad on them.

        So F Off with your tough guy attitude and call 1 800 Dr. Phil!

    1. Your predictions have already been shown to be false…

      And let’s be clear, Apple are going to rake up a lot of (justified) international wins against copiers in the next few years unless they change course dramatically.

  7. As a lawyer, I litigate cases such as this — both at trial and on appeal. A juror’s comments outside of the courtroom are totally irrelevant to the judicial review of the verdict and to the appellate process. Thus, while the press and the industry may have great interest in what the juror has to say, the courts will not.

    1. This is not a simple domestic case of litigation. The stakes are HUGE for America on several fronts hence why and I just heard it 30 minutes ago that the US DOJ has now taken an interest in this matter. Needless to say that the South Korean government has undoubtedly contacted the US government to discuss this case and have questioned the verdict given the Jury Foreman’s loose tongue and the lack of any similar verdict against Samsung in other international jurisdictions.

      Time will tell, but given that you are a Lawyer tells me that you are very familiar with the Law and the latter being subject to interpretation and often times challenged and all I am saying is that the Jury Foreman’s behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. Would love to hear Judge speak on this.

      1. Clearly you have *ABSOLUTELY NO* idea how appeals work.

        1. Unless the Jury Foreman (or someone else on the jury) says they did something that *explicitly* violates the presiding judge’s instructions (not interpretation of instructions but an *explicit* violation) OR a juror says they did something that is an illegal act during the trial (like talking directly to either side) then whatever a juror says after the trial is 100% irrelevant to the case at hand.

        2. If the lawyers for either side wanted the instructions to be more explicit and state *exactly* that deciding if an infringement occurred *included* deciding if the patents were valid in and of themselves, then both sides had ample chance to request that — the presiding judge was entertaining motions right up until the morning of instructions being given to the jury. If either side didn’t get their wording into the instructions then THAT may be grounds for appeal. A juror’s comments after the fact is not relevant to appeal (unless they fall under case 1 above).

        3. You are the only source that is claiming the DOJ is looking into this. Unless the DOJ suspects (and feels it can prove) jury tampering by either side or illegal acts by the presiding judge, the DOJ will absolutely *NOT* get involved in a civil lawsuit. At this point I’d suspect any such idea is a Fandroid’s wild dream and fantasy.

      2. “Time will tell, but given that you are a Lawyer tells me that you are very familiar with the Law and the latter being subject to interpretation and often times challenged and all I am saying is that the Jury Foreman’s behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. Would love to hear Judge speak on this.”

        Beautiful sentence structure!


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.