Jury Foreman in Apple/Samsung is an idiot...
the Samsung prior art
Just to clarify, I assume you mean the examples of prior art submitted by the Samsung side (rather than prior art patented by Samsung).
I don't get the U.S. obsession with juries. There are some cases where the level of expertise and/or understanding of the law is so high that a random selection of the public should be kept as far away from it as possible.
Still, it is interesting watching public reactions and comments on the case, as it seems most people aren't aware of everything involved and are investing their personal feelings regarding litigation by big corporations.
Anyone have any opinion on Samsung's counterclaim and the significance for patents essential to practice an industry standard? TBH, it is the more complex area, but the despite the potential impact on the 3G standard and standards setting processes for future technology, it has received relatively little coverage.
I don't get the U.S. obsession with juries. There are some cases where the level of expertise and/or understanding of the law is so high that a random selection of the public should be kept as far away from it as possible.
+1
+1
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.
Pretty sure jurors on any type of case in the US can discuss what went on, and in England it is a criminal offence to do so in any jurisdiction. We have juries in some non-criminal cases, such as defamation and inquests.
The sort of reaction on this thread gives me a 'gut feeling' towards our rules, especially when you hear comments from what Andrew correctly described as a self-aggrandising individual such as this. However, it seems to me there'd be good arguments to allow for at least some sort of academic research into it, if not interviews such as in this case. (1) Without this, decisions may be made on an improper basis. Juries have previously decided cases using a ouija board and on the toss of a coin. They are told at the start of the cases to send a note if anything of concern is happening. But if they don't do so before a verdict then it can be very hard to sort out. (2) Whilst it can give some 'negative press', such as in this case, overall it is preferable for justice to be open and for the public to know how decisions are made. Judges give fully reasoned decisions; it is perhaps odd that jury decisions are entirely secretive.
I don't get the U.S. obsession with juries. There are some cases where the level of expertise and/or understanding of the law is so high that a random selection of the public should be kept as far away from it as possible.
+1
Couldn't have put it better. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Why can't the jury make their own mind up? This was a very high profile case which required 9 experts understanding the law, not one having an "aha moment" & others agreeing to it.
+1
Don't forget that it is the same public with the same feelings (seen those Apple adverts that tug you emotionally?) that buy these products and make the companies successful. Most of them are not even aware how technologies work, they're only interested in end user experience. Does the public really care about being aware of everything?
I don't get the U.S. obsession with juries. There are some cases where the level of expertise and/or understanding of the law is so high that a random selection of the public should be kept as far away from it as possible.
+1
Couldn't have put it better. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Why can't the jury make their own mind up? This was a very high profile case which required 9 experts understanding the law, not one having an "aha moment" & others agreeing to it.
Erm, ID's point was entirely different from 'letting the jury make their own mind up'. He was saying it shouldn't be decided by a lay jury at all, as I said in my first post on this thread. Alternatives would be a judge deciding (as happens in this country) or having some sort of body / panel of experts who sit on all such disputes (as you suggest in your last sentence).
Another article
We had already noted what appeared to be serious problems with the way the jury decided the verdict in the Apple/Samsung case -- including ignoring prior art, awarding damages on patents not infringed, and an admission of choosing punitive damages, despite instructions that clearly bar such an action. And it seems to only be getting worse. Groklaw points out that Velvin Hogan, the controversial jury foreman, went onto Bloomberg TV to defend himself, but only served tomake things worse, by more or less admitting to not understanding how prior art works.
As was discussed in the previous post, the jury initially got hung up on the question of prior art on the first patent (7,469,381 -- better known as the "bounceback patent" -- covering how when you scroll and hit the edge of a "page" the screen "bounces back.") However, in this interview, Hogan explains the "aha!" moment he had that led him to suggest to the jury that the prior art doesn't apply:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
You can see him say this in the video below, around the 3 minute mark:Basically, he's admitting that he doesn't understand how prior art works. The fact that the software wouldn't run on the same processor is meaningless. In fact, as Groklaw notes, the jury instructions (which Hogan again insists the jury read) note that to find prior art, you just have to show that the invention has already been done or even explained somewhere else. That's got nothing to do with whether or not it can run on the same processor.
Once again, we learn why it's silly to have juries determining patent cases.
Once again, we learn why it's silly to have juries determining patent cases.
Good stuff, I know I'll sleep easier tonight.
IThe US justice system just gets more hilarious.
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.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. 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.
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.
Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:
Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
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.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.
And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.
Joe, what sort of music do you like and what do you listen on? Not a trick, just curious.
Joe, what sort of music do you like and what do you listen on? Not a trick, just curious.
And if I reply "DeathMetal" what will you read into that ?
The main question is, if this involved any company other than Apple, would Pluto still be classified as a planet?
Joe, what sort of music do you like and what do you listen on? Not a trick, just curious.
And if I reply "DeathMetal" what will you read into that ?
I wouldn't judge. I listen to some great music and some arguably embarrassing music. Genuine curiosity.
If u were in my favourite boozer last night (The Salisbury, Manchester) you could have heard me put this lot on the jukebox..
Smashing Pumpkins - 1979
Kansas - Carry On My Wayward Son
Helloween - Keeper Of the Seven Keys Pt2
Creedance ClearWater Revival - Fortunate Son
Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell
Cure - Just Live Heaven
Q Lazzurus - Goodbye Horses
- Login to post comments
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 shouldn't have used words that might be interpreted as insulting, so I apologise for that. However, in fairness if you respond to a point I make simply by linking to an article it's rather difficult for me to know that you're 'not interested in what it thinks' and that you're only interested in part of one quote.
Why does this not seem right? Again, how do people think juries work? It's a group dynamic of (I think in this case 9) individuals. Some will be cleverer / less clever, some more / less erudite, some have stronger / weaker personalities etc. It's not a secret ballot democracy, it's a lengthy discussion in which the command is to reach a consensus, if possible. This sort of thing happens all the time. And both parties will have known this guy being a dominant personality was a likelihood. Presumably both hoped that would work in their favour. At the end of the day, each juror had their own mind. If they weren't happy with the decision they didn't have to go along with it.
Have you done jury service yourself BB? I'm guessing not. But imagine you were on a jury deciding, say, an infanticide case with complex, competing medical evidence. I doubt you'd be kicked off the jury just for being a doctor. Do you think you might have a lot to say? Do you think the others might listen to you in particular? Do you tihnk you might end up foreman?
I didn't say you had any love for Samsung; I said you didn't like the way Apple go about things, which you've confirmed. I understand that view generally (tho I don't really care), but I don't see how they can be accused of bullying in a jury trial. Both sides call evidence, make their arguments to a jury and then have no influence on the decision. 9 normal people decide. Apple won. So it goes.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom