“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:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Wonder how much Samsung is paying for this?
Do you accuse everyone who does something you don’t like of taking a bribe? Last week, were you accusing this same guy of taking a bribe from Apple?
0zzie9O3, everyone knows you’ve been paid-off by the anti-bribing commission!
I paid Lux to pay you to say that!
That’s not what you were supposed to say, Kingmel. Give me my 20 back.
Considering this was a Gizmodo interview, you’re probably right and they did it for free since these thieves also have an axe to grind with Apple.
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.
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.
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….
He might talk until his mouth falls off, it won’t help Samsung. Trust me.
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…
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.
And of course that bunch of sad little sycophants at gizmodo wouldn’t ask intentionally misleading questions…
What’s the problem? They did what the JUDGE TOLD them….in front of Samdungs lawyers. If they didn’t object then they didn’t object!
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.
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.
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.
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.
1
This is an incredibly obvious hit piece. No surprise from the bitter Gizmodo.
Jizzmodo bitches have sand permanantly embedded in their vaginas.
Nothing printed there has the value you’d find in a newspaper lining the bottom of a bird cage.
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.
Exactly. Samsung is not going to win anything meaningful on Appeal, with a possible exception of having the damages awarded reduced.
Well, Gizhoredo and Groklaw are haters, so they’ll pick every nit they can.
They will, and it won’t matter.
This is the legal system we’re talking about. They don’t do anything else *but* pick every nit they can.
This foreman is the Samsung appeals lawyer’s wet dream.
The foreman won’t help Samsung appeals in the slightest.
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.
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.
You wouldn’t know your ass from a hole in the ground even if your mother helped you.
Tell me where you got your law degree and don’t say on the internet.
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!
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.
Would of?
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.
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.
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.
“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!
/s
Shitmodo, desperate for anything anti Apple.
Sorry bunch of crooks with zero credibility.
Does this even matter? I mean he could say aliens came down and told him to do it. God can come down and touch him and tell him to vote one way or another sway the whole jury.
He’s not on trial or even the bench. His role in the case is over, he can roll up and die, it doesn’t matter.
There were 9 people in the jury, a judge, court reporter, tons of documentation, lawyers everywhere.
Anything he says outside of context means absolutely nothing.
Samsung lost in court but is still trying to win in the minds of the public. Paying a juror to throw a case is highly illegal, but paying a former juror to say stupid things while NOT under oath can be very profitable and almost impossible to prevent. The PR battlefront is still in play…
“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…”
This is Gizmodo’s interpretation. The law is what the presiding judge says it is. The judge instructed the jurors to look at infringement only. Nowhere was this detailed as “infringement” meant that the jurors were to decide if the underlying patents were valid or not. Nowhere were the jurors explicitly instructed to decide whether the patents are invalid in and of themselves. It is just *Gizmodo’s* interpretation of the law that deciding on infringement inherently meant that the jurors were to decide on validity of the patents themselves.
Just like Mayor Villaraigosa; never turns downs a camera pointed at him and the more he talks the more problems he creates. Get smart, take the Foreman far away from cameras- like the Aleutian Islands. Oh, put Mayor Villaraigosa with him, maybe they will fight over the imaginary camera’s.
Sorry, but the jurors aren’t qualified to determine whether or not a patent should have been issued. Period.
Jeez, the phrase STFU comes to mind.
What is this obsession with celebrity?
Have you not noticed any of the reality TV bullshit in the last 10+ years? Not the big dance/singing/talent shows, I’m talking crap like Jersey Shore, Big Brother, Bachelor/Bachelorette, Survivor, Kardashians, where there’s no special skills to speak of and the drama and conflict is 100% manufactured pap–if not by the producers then by the “stars” of the show themselves.
I wonder what smart phones the jurors had and what the ration was of iPhone to android.. or vice versa
That was address in void dire… None of them had either iPhones or Samsung phones. The foreman, IIRC, has a Windows phone.
Most of you have no clue what you are talking about. lawdcjay is spot on correct: The foreman’s comments have nothing to do with the appeal.
An appeals process is strictly reviewing how the law was applied and interpreted in the trial court, and that the trial judge followed correct procedures, etc. so as not to prejudice one side or the other.
There is NO introduction of new evidence on appeal. In other words, if Samsung or Apple failed to raise a legal argument or introduce facts or documents, too bad, they had their chance. Now if the judge ruled that a particular piece of evidence/testimony was inadmissible and was incorrect in doing so, the appeals court could reverse that ruling and send it back to the trial court, but that is rare.
Bottom line is that the appeals court will be reviewing how the law was applied to the facts introduced, and ruling on that only. There are no witnesses, etc., just lawyers making legal arguments in briefs and oral arguments to the judges. That’s it.
Groklaw’s general hatred of IP + Jizzmodo’s hatred of Apple = this steaming pile of soft-serve turd.
Juries are specifically told NOT to judge the law… which would be what Gizmodo claims they are being told to do… judge whether the patent should have been issued. Nope, Gizmodo is wrong. The Jury sits as triers of FACT, not in judgement of the law as it is presented to them.
The appeal will be presented only on whether reversible errors occurred DURING the trial. Did the judge make a mistake.
The GrokLaw article is amazingly ill-informed, illogical, and unintelligible. They don’t seem to know the law or the language called English.
There’s so much wrong in this article, I’ll just pick out one simple thing:
The juror basically said that they didn’t practice jury nullification on whether current patent policy is fair or not, and the author implies that by following the judge’s instructions, they somehow created an improper jury decision.
I’m saying all this as someone who thinks that our patent system is a serious mess, and that perhaps Apple (and others!) shouldn’t be able to get patents for many things they do get patents for. However, that wasn’t what the judge told the jury to do in this case.
“They don’t seem to know the law or the language called English.”
The Internet disagrees with you.
Groklaw has been cited by the attorneys for several firms in law journal articles. It has also won awards:
2010 – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) 2010 Pioneer Awards[10]
2009 – Top 200 Tech Blogs: The Datamation 2009 List “The famed Groklaw is still going strong, far past the SCO case that first brought the blog to prominence.”[11]
2008 – The Award for Projects of Social Benefit – The Free Software Foundation (FSF)[12]
2007 – Knowledge Masters Award for Innovation – Knowledge Trust and the Louis Round Wilson Academy [13]
2007 – Best FUD Fighter – Google-O’Reilly Open Source Awards[14]
2005 – Best News Site – ConsortiumInfo*.org – Pamela Jones/Groklaw: Best Community Site or Blog (Non-Profit)
2005 – Best Blogger of the Year – Dana Blankenhorn, Corante[15]
2004 – Best Website of 2004 – The Inquirer[16]
2004 – Best Independent Tech Blog – TechWeb Network: Readers Choice Award
2004 – Best Nontechnical or Community Website – Linux Journal: Editors’ Choice Award
2003 – Best News Site – OSDir.com: Editor’s Choice Winner
Now post your CV.