Jury Foreman in Apple/Samsung is an idiot...
Here is an excert from the BBC's interview with the lead juror from the Apple/Samsung case. Just look how completely gets how prior art works wrong. The various interent law sites are slating him badly - and saying the verdict will be overturned. He used his "knowledge" to change the other jurors minds against Samsung.
---------
There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: Whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that some of the patents that Apple had put forward shouldn't be allowed to stand? There has been a lot made in the media and elsewhere that Apple wasn't the first with some of the ideas that they had patented.
To try to make it as easy as possible - I have addressed this in other interviews that I have had - what it amounts to is there has been a big fuss since the deliberation that prior art was not considered. Prior art was considered.
When we had to determine the validity of Apple's patent against the charges of Samsung's with the prior art examples, what we had to do - to make it clear - is that not only did we have to validate, if you will, the Apple patent, but in looking at the prior art we had stipulations in the law that tested both sides and if the test wasn't passed then it was clear either the patent was valid or it wasn't.
Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
And vice versa of that was also true. So the point being, at the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different.
One could not be exchanged for the other. And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art? No.
Did it mean prior art could not have been used to compete against anything any other company had done? No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying both could have existed independently of each other and been used. The thing you have to remember is that the prior art that belonged to Samsung, or belonged to somebody else that they had the ability of using, they had not used for quite some time.
And the methodology that they had implemented was just right up against the line of infringement and went beyond it in most cases. And not all cases.
Not everything that Apple accused of Samsung was correct and we made those stipulations as we filled out the form, and well, you know how it played out.
My point is that there were substantially difference between the prior art and the new method, but the key was you could not replace one for the other.
There had been a lot of speculation that although Apple might get damages, Samsung might get damages as well. Why did Samsung's case fail?
Whenever we considered the prior art and we looked at those patents, and specifically the claims that were involved, and the claim limitations that were involved, we had the instruction from the judge who had given us the stipulation of the precedent in the law that for the prior art in this case to negate or invalidate the patent on Apple's side - that was being involved in the allegation from Samsung that the patent was invalid because of the prior art - we had to establish that number one, the two methods were substantially similar; that the outcome was the same, in other words the functionality was the same, that would be at the 40,000-foot level. But what was key to us, and it was a very important piece, is that the stipulation in the law, they had to be interchangeable.
And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work, and the converse of that was true.
Nope, me neither but the really stupid thing about that verdict was they found that the phones looked like the iPhone but NOT the tablets, when any fool can see that the tablets actually look far more like the iPad than the phones looked like the iPhones, it was a nonsense decision.
You probably need someone who's able to read self-aggrandising nonsense to help you decide what you should think about it, JD...
Its fairly simple...
He claims the Samsung prior art was unable to run Apple code, so wasnt valid prior art. This is not how you invalidate a patent.
He then goes onto to say that the prior art and patent much be interchangeable. This is also incorrect.
Yet it is these arguments he used to convince the rest of the jury to change their minds and vote for Apple. This guys seems to think he understood things better than the other jury members, used his own "knowledge" for deciding what was correct - instead of following the 100+ pages of jury instructions.
Never trust a man called Velvin...
Seriously tho...
Yet it is these arguments he used to convince the rest of the jury to change their minds and vote for Apple.
Where does it say he changed the mind of the rest of the jury? The most he says is they probably reached a decision quicker with him on the jury than if he hadn't been on it, and that if there'd been a different jury they might have reached the same or a different decision (well, duh...).
Dangerous having a juror with a bit of knowledge, but if it works the same as the US criminal juries, presumably both parties had the opportunity to examine him and ask him to stand down?
Seems odd to me that a jury would be involved in making these technical decisions and indeed awarding damages. Wouldn't happen here.
Velvin Hogan has been biased towards patent system due to his own interests in it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-lea...
Velvin Hogan has been biased towards patent system due to his own interests in it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-lea...
I have no idea what 'biased towards the patents system' means. That's like saying someone is 'biased towards the land registry system' if they own property. I certainly don't see how it would mean he was biased for either party. And that article shows he was extensively examined as part of the selection procedure, and clearly both sides were happy to have him on the jury.
I don't give a rat's ....
Velvin Hogan has been biased towards patent system due to his own interests in it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-lea...
I have no idea what 'biased towards the patents system' means. That's like saying someone is 'biased towards the land registry system' if they own property. I certainly don't see how it would mean he was biased for either party. And that article shows he was extensively examined as part of the selection procedure, and clearly both sides were happy to have him on the jury.
http://www.cultofmac.com/187833/patent-held-by-apple-vs-samsung-jury-for...
Velvin Hogan has been biased towards patent system due to his own interests in it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-samsung-jury-may-have-lea...
I have no idea what 'biased towards the patents system' means. That's like saying someone is 'biased towards the land registry system' if they own property. I certainly don't see how it would mean he was biased for either party. And that article shows he was extensively examined as part of the selection procedure, and clearly both sides were happy to have him on the jury.
http://www.cultofmac.com/187833/patent-held-by-apple-vs-samsung-jury-for...
Well that link in no way addresses the point that the phrase 'biased towards the patents system' is meaningless in this context.
Terrible article anyway, just like the last one. Other than to say he has a patent, it's entirely devoid of facts. And seeing as both parties knew about that when he went on the jury, then it's difficult to see how any appeal could come out of it.
The last article bizarrely referred to the different makeup of the jury, such as differing levels of education, as though there was some significance in this. How do people think juries work? Are people really suggesting some sort of conspiracy because someone on the jury who (thinks he) has some relevant knowledge passes it on to the others? Again, how do people think juries work? That's entirely the point of them. If people don't like it they should lobby their local politician, not claim that they have some special insight into individual cases when they haven't heard all the evidence.
So both those articles have almost no facts, are entirely speculative and make meaningless points. Either the journalism is terrible or, more likely, they're aware of this but realise they'll get plenty of hits and links from apple-obssessed individuals. I thought you, BB, would be more rational and inteliigent than to think there's anything in these articles, but perhaps you are influenced by your own bias / views that you do not like how apple go about things.
This seems to be a pretty reasonable write up of what's to come
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/the-biggest-issue-with-apple-samsung....
So both those articles have almost no facts, are entirely speculative and make meaningless points. Either the journalism is terrible or, more likely, they're aware of this but realise they'll get plenty of hits and links from apple-obssessed individuals. I thought you, BB, would be more rational and inteliigent than to think there's anything in these articles, but perhaps you are influenced by your own bias / views that you do not like how apple go about things.
I'm not interested in what the articles think. I'm only interested in the direct quote of what Velvin Hogan said in that link, which is not a mere speculation of the journalist. Depends on how you want to take it; one member of the jury suddenly has a eureka moment which then influences the decision of the entire jury? It just does not seem right to me. You may be satisfied with all this, & think my views are irrational & unintelligent, so be it.
I have no love for Samsung. I've never bought a Samsung phone / tablet. In fact, my wife owns an iPhone. But I am very disappointed with Apple's bullying approach in all this.
This seems to be a pretty reasonable write up of what's to come
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/the-biggest-issue-with-apple-samsung....
Florian Mueller of Foss Patents is paid by Oracle/Microsoft to blog against Google. He is most famous for saying Oracle would beat Google over copyright on java. Of Course he lost. Everything he says is usually both biased and more importantly wrong.
Hopefully a successful outcome will ensue:
http://business.time.com/2012/08/31/patent-peace-apples-tim-cook-googles...
Personally I think it's interesting that jurors in the US can talk about the decision making process. Is it just for civil cases. I know for a fact that in UK jurors are not allowed to disclose anything about how their decisions are made- at least for criminal cases, not sure if we have juries in civil cases?. I'm convinced the UK method of jurisprudence is better.
- Login to post comments
I don't understand a word of that.
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com