There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 26, 2012 14:14 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
In reply to: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw) by yokem_55
Parent article: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

"It turns out that the foreman of the jury is a patent holder and in the deliberations he used his own experience as a patent holder to argue successfully that the prior art Samsung argued invalidated Apple's functional patents didn't apply."

Not only that - it turns out the foreman is a holder of a rather silly trivial patent and thus has a vested interest in setting a precedent for trivial patents being upheld.

He has even admitted almost as much, in saying that he specifically wanted to "send a message" with their judgement.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 26, 2012 16:49 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (7 responses)

One might not agree with their conclusion but I think that this makes the jury verdict even more fair, more like a jury of peers. Having more viewpoints represented is more fair but it means that you have to accept decisions that not everyone likes.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 26, 2012 16:53 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link] (2 responses)

Not if it means the foreman, of all people, leads the jury through a quick slapdash verdict without heeding judicial instructions.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 27, 2012 0:49 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

In fact, if this article is correct (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-v-samsun...), he was instructing other jurors about the patent system, using his own experience. This, according to at least one other juror, made it "easier" to decide.

BTW, the jury foreman holds a patent on a DVR, filed in 2002 (Tivo was shown at CES in 1999). No, really, it is actually a patent on a DVR!

I'm really not surprised that the patent system is a complete mess when generic and obvious stuff like that can be patented after working machines are being offered for sale. And I'm also not surprised he convinced other jurors that Apple's patents are oh so precious.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 13, 2012 22:42 UTC (Thu) by xyzzy (guest, #1984) [Link]

It takes a sufficient number of compliant jurors as well as a foreman to get a quick slapdash verdict. I was a foreman on a jury trial here in NZ and the jurors definitely ranged from "will go with whatever everyone else seems to think" to "I have to think this through properly" to "this guy has to be found guilty/not guilty no matter what evidence I hear". Thankfully most were in that think-this-through group.

If your fate is being decided by a jury, pray that you get enough people who care about doing a good job, and/or a foreman who will *make* everyone go through a proper decision process.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 27, 2012 20:01 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (subscriber, #2881) [Link] (3 responses)

Given that a (12 person?) jury does *not* and cannot represent many viewpoints, and in this case appears to represent the viewpoint of the single self-appointed expert who was the jury foreman, whose views could not be challenged in court by Samsung, I don't see how this verdict is "more fair" in any way.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 27, 2012 21:28 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (1 responses)

I believe it was a 9 person jury, randomly selected, and they did represent different viewpoints, including one viewpoint of a patent holder. Do you really think that juries should have their deliberations challenged by the lawyers of the case or did you just say that because you don't like the outcome? Fairness doesn't mean always getting what you want or everyone always agreeing, in fact that would be definitely un-fair.

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 27, 2012 22:35 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> including one viewpoint of a patent holder

Please do yourself a favour and read his patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&...

Obvious, non-inventive, too general and filed 3 years after Tivo was a product.

More like viewpoint of a patent holder wannabe...

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 7, 2012 8:02 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The accounts I've read from jury members in that case suggest the jury had plenty of different points of view and they debated their way to a conclusion.