Apple VS Samsung.. if you were a juror

[Guest hitoallusa]

I am not sure how 9 jurors came up with such a dangerous decision.. Was there a hidden foreperson who manipulated everything like in John Grisham's novel? I would say it's fair to be a patriot and love a domestic company.. Not sure those 9 jurors thought about the implications of their biased judgment... or I might be biased...

[Guest FourAces]

Your questions are very difficult for any of us to answer without very detailed knowledge of the case. It comes down to use of patents and the jury felt Samsung infringed on those patents.

On a side note have you seen the Samsung store in Australia? It is set up like a Apple store Does Samsung have no ideas of their own?

[Guest hitoallusa]

Yes I have and I find it interesting because I won't be able to figure out whether I'm at Macy's or JC Penny when I'm at a department store if there were no company name posted...

It's the same for me when I'm at a grocery store... They tend to have a similar lay out... What people point out about Samsung shop in Sydney is a bit biased...

Your questions are very difficult for any of us to answer without very detailed knowledge of the case. It comes down to use of patents and the jury felt Samsung infringed on those patents.

On a side note have you seen the Samsung store in Australia? It is set up like a Apple store Does Samsung have no ideas of their own?

[marcanthony]

Your questions are very difficult for any of us to answer without very detailed knowledge of the case. It comes down to use of patents and the jury felt Samsung infringed on those patents.

I am not sure how 9 jurors came up with such a dangerous decision..

This is a very interesting conversation to me for a completely different reason. As Aces says, I don't profess to have enough knowledge of the relevant patents, NOR THE TRAINING AND EXPERTISE TO UNDERSTAND whether the patent was actually infringed upon by standards usually upheld by courts and the USPTO. And I am someone who actually has patents, has a patent attorney, and meets with this patent attorney quarterly.

Nonetheless, as hitoall says, somehow a jury was able to understand enough to award a huge settlement to Apple.

Now I have no dog in this hunt as I don't care about how much money Apple and Samsung have because they both have more than they know what to do with, but I am concerned about what it means to have a "jury of your peers" for a civil case. I understand the Constiutional requirement of this for many cases, but I am hard pressed to understand who the peers would be for many highly technical cases like these, or anti-trust suits, or complex malpractice suits, etc etc. I don't believe our founding fathers had such cases in mind when they guaranteed jury trials.

Who were the peers in this case on the jury? 12 patent attorneys? Anything less, and can we be confident that they should be shaping the course of patent law and even affecting the world's economy with their verdict?

Just very interesting to me and seems to me that our judicial system has not evolved in time with our explosion of knowledge and technology. Do we truly believe that 12 average citizens can provide the basis for patent law? Would you hire one of them to give you patent advice if you owned a patent?

Since Apple is worth $650 billion dollars already, maybe they can give this 1.5 billion to fund research as to how we can provide a Constitutional amendment to make adjudication of complex civil cases credible.

[Guest EXPAT]

I don't think they were biased. There is a serious issue with both Chinese and Korean companies stealing so much technology and calling it their own. The burden of proof on the lawyers to prove patent ownership is very clear and that had to be done in court. I'm sure Samsung will appeal because this kind of ruling is disastrous for a company. But something has to be done about the blatant stealing that is occurring all the time.

[Guest tomcal]

First a Disclaimer: I am biased, I bought Apple stock 4 years ago, and have held on to it! :-)

The Wall street journal has a summary :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444327204577612951560958304.html

HITOALLUSA:"I am not sure how 9 jurors came up with such a dangerous decision.. Was there a hidden foreperson who manipulated everything like in John Grisham's novel? I would say it's fair to be a patriot and love a domestic company.. Not sure those 9 jurors thought about the implications of their biased judgment... or I might be biased"

If you read the jury foreperson's account of the deliberations published yesterday

(Jury foreman Velvin Hogan -- a patent holder himself -- said Apple's arguments were persuasive and that video testimony from Samsung executives made it "absolutely" clear the infringement was done on purpose.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," the 67-year-old retired engineer said...)

I am not sure how you can make a statement like the above. It would be like me saying last week's So.Korea verdict in Samsung's favor was becasue of nationalistic bias. I or you have absolutely no grounds to base a statement like that on what we know! The jury foreman said it was evident early on that Samsung encrouched on the patents and was more daming to their case was the Samsung exectutives reluctance to answer the questions

[Guest hitoallusa]

Just wanted to know what other people thought about it. I should not have said that jury was biased or made their decision based on one's nationality. To me it was a bit surprising and troublesome decision.

First a Disclaimer: I am biased, I bought Apple stock 4 years ago, and have held on to it! :-)

The Wall street journal has a summary :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444327204577612951560958304.html

HITOALLUSA:"I am not sure how 9 jurors came up with such a dangerous decision.. Was there a hidden foreperson who manipulated everything like in John Grisham's novel? I would say it's fair to be a patriot and love a domestic company.. Not sure those 9 jurors thought about the implications of their biased judgment... or I might be biased"

If you read the jury foreperson's account of the deliberations published yesterday

(Jury foreman Velvin Hogan -- a patent holder himself -- said Apple's arguments were persuasive and that video testimony from Samsung executives made it "absolutely" clear the infringement was done on purpose.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," the 67-year-old retired engineer said...)

I am not sure how you can make a statement like the above. It would be like me saying last week's So.Korea verdict in Samsung's favor was becasue of nationalistic bias. I or you have absolutely no grounds to base a statement like that on what we know! The jury foreman said it was evident early on that Samsung encrouched on the patents and was more daming to their case was the Samsung exectutives reluctance to answer the questions

[Guest hitoallusa]

I think your statement is true but Apple has done the same thing too. The patent law is extremely complicated and sometimes it hinders innovation and progress. I hate when people use morally condemning words like stealing to their competitor but when they commit the same thing they call themselves innovators and pioneers.. That's what I'm upset about. It's not a moral issue here. It's about getting an advantage in the game using the name of morality. Samsung has enough skills and produced products that don't infringe Apple's patents. A recent Ruling in England proves that. Samsung can stand on its own...

I don't think they were biased. There is a serious issue with both Chinese and Korean companies stealing so much technology and calling it their own. The burden of proof on the lawyers to prove patent ownership is very clear and that had to be done in court. I'm sure Samsung will appeal because this kind of ruling is disastrous for a company. But something has to be done about the blatant stealing that is occurring all the time.

[Guest EXPAT]

I'm still not convinced that Apple stole anything regardless of rulings around the world.

[TampaYankee]

I think your statement is true but Apple has done the same thing too.

So what? Does that excuse anything? No! Apply the law to all equally. Apple was found liable for infringing on Xerox patents to name one. That is why we have Windows today. Just because one does it does not excuse it for anyone. Apply the law equally to all....

[Guest FourAces]

but I am concerned about what it means to have a "jury of your peers" for a civil case. I understand the Constiutional requirement of this for many cases, but I am hard pressed to understand who the peers would be for many highly technical cases like these, or anti-trust suits, or complex malpractice suits, etc etc. I don't believe our founding fathers had such cases in mind when they guaranteed jury trials.

Who were the peers in this case on the jury? 12 patent attorneys? Anything less, and can we be confident that they should be shaping the course of patent law and even affecting the world's economy with their verdict?

Just very interesting to me and seems to me that our judicial system has not evolved in time with our explosion of knowledge and technology. Do we truly believe that 12 average citizens can provide the basis for patent law? Would you hire one of them to give you patent advice if you owned a patent?

Its a little stretch but the patent conversation reminds me a little of DNA presented at trials. Does the average person really understand the details of DNA?

When it comes to extreme technical issues is it time to revamp the way our courts hear these cases? As Marc notes I doubt the founding fathers could have predicted such cases. I do not believe if they could have we would see the same court system.

[marcanthony]

Here's an article from the Associated Press that adds some detail to the same question I raised about jury trials for complex intellectual property cases. I have no idea if this jury came to the right or wrong conclusion, but I do know that the impact of their conclusion is far too significant for their qualifications to allow them to make.

I attached the link to the whole article and posted the opening few paragraphs:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/27/apple-jurors-grappled-with-complex-patent-issues/

SAN JOSE, Calif. – The youngest juror, a 24-year-old whose favorite court attire was T-shirts bearing names of rock bands, chose a Beatles sweatshirt for Friday's dramatic unveiling of the $1.05 billion verdict in favor of computer titan Apple Inc. One of the oldest was a retired electrical engineer who, as foreman, signed the unanimous verdict that Samsung Electronics Co. copied Apple's patented technology for the iPhone and iPad.

Among the other seven jurors were a homemaker, a bicycle shop manager and a U.S. Navy veteran.

The decision Friday by this panel of people from many walks of Silicon Valley life was one that experts say could dramatically alter the future of computer tablet and phone design if the verdict stands. But the case also is part of a trend that has accompanied an explosion in the number of patent infringement cases, especially in the technology sector.

Increasingly, these highly complex disputes are being decided by juries, rather than judges, and the juries tend to issue more generous awards for patent violations.

THE ISSUE: Apple claimed Samsung's smartphones and computer tablets "slavishly copied" the iPhones and iPads.

THE VERDICT: A nine-person jury unanimously ordered Samsung to pay $1 billion.

THE FALLOUT: The embarrassment of the verdict is a bigger blow than the financial setback. But will all of Apple's competitors have to redesign their smartphones?

WHAT'S NEXT: Samsung is asking the judge to toss out the verdict. It will appeal to the Supreme Court. Apple will ask the judge to triple the damages to $3 billion. A Sept. 20 hearing will decide these and other issues. Summary

That has companies on the receiving end of successful patent infringement lawsuits crying foul and calling for reform in the patent system, but it also has some legal experts questioning whether ordinary citizens should be rendering verdicts and fixing damages in such high-stakes, highly technical cases.

"That's a great question ... and it's the subject of a fair amount of current debate," said Notre Dame University law professor Mark McKenna.

Deliberations in the Apple v. Samsung battle were far more challenging than most. The jury was confronted with hundreds of questions on a 20-page verdict form that was more complicated than a U.S. tax return. They had in the jury room more than two dozen electronic devices at issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109-pages of instructions from the judge on rendering a verdict.

"This case is unmanageable for a jury," Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. "There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/27/apple-jurors-grappled-with-complex-patent-issues/#ixzz24lu0XAvo

[lookin]

I'd love to see somebody get pissed off enough to blow past Apple with even better technology. It will happen one day. Why not one day soon?

[Guest EXPAT]

The Apple ruling even impacted the Starship Enterprise. . .

[Guest FourAces]

Here's an article from the Associated Press that adds some detail to the same question I raised about jury trials for complex intellectual property cases. I have no idea if this jury came to the right or wrong conclusion, but I do know that the impact of their conclusion is far too significant for their qualifications to allow them to make.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz24lu0XAvo

Thanks for posting the article. It shines a bright spotlight on a very weak part of our justice system. I hope in the near future the issue can be corrected but I don't see that happening.

[AdamSmith]

The Delaware Court of Chancery is the mercy of many businesses incorporated there (wherever those companies do their actual dirty work) and knows what it is doing. Why -- addressed to the legal beagles here -- can't more companies get their substantive cases heard in like courts of truly competent jurisdiction? How did this hairy thing fall into the lap of a lay jury in the first place?

Please pardon, and remedy, my ignorance.