A few of jurors in the Apple v. Samsung case have started granting interviews, and insight into the Jury’s deliberation process.
Perhaps most alarming is the fact the jurors claimed they knew Samsung was guilty after the first day of deliberations. Jury foreman Velvin Hogan and juror Manuel Ilagan in a CNET interview claimed it was “clear there was infringement.”
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause." — Ilegan
“We weren't impatient. We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough. We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement...
Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush.” — Ilegan
Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush.” — Ilegan
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property.” — Hogan.
However, Samsung's lawyers and a number of legal experts across the Internet have started raising questions about the Jury's deliberation process, and the actions of Jury foreman Hogan, who himself is a patent owner of what is basically a glorified DVR or Home Theater PC. Hogan's "expertise" prevented the rest of the jurors from going over a 100+ page instructional document on how to evaluate and determine compensation. From the juror's comments it appears that during deliberation the jury decided if a company violated the other's patent(s) before determining if the patent itself was valid, thereby negating the need to determine if it was violated or not.
Most concerning though is Hogans comments that the jury wanted to "send a message." His comments imply the jury awarded punitive damages instead of compensatory. These oversights/errors could give Samsung's lawyers ammo during appeals and actually result in a successful motion to have the jury's ruling thrown out.
Source: Macrumors, AppleInsider, GrokLaw
Reply
