Home

Share this Story

Video: Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Opens Up About Reaching Verdict

Well, folks, here is the guy in charge of explaining how the jury came to its verdict in the Samsung vs. Apple patent case that just wrapped. His name is Vel Hogan, a man with a “tech background” who owns his own patent. After watching this video, you’ll feel uncomfortable and probably finish with your head tilted to the side with an inquisitive look on your face. I think it’s clear that this man’s “Ah ha!” moment, that he references around the 2:40 mark, helped an entire jury decide to rule in favor of Apple. And I’m not saying that Samsung isn’t at fault here, but one man who may not have the ultimate grasp on patent law, convinced several people to lean one way. 

Throughout the video, he also talks about the $1 billion in damages total and how they reached that number, mentions the fact that no one on the jury owns an iPhone, that there was an “overwhelming” amount of evidence against Samsung, and that he didn’t feel that Apple had “home field advantage.” It’s worth a look. I would also love to hear your thoughts.

Cheers Jeff and EC8CH!

  • Tony Thomas

    This guy should have been disqualified from being a juror. His ahah moment was by thinking how he could enforce a patent which is biassed to one side. Instead, he should have been thinking “how can a developer design ANYTHING to meet a clear function without being totally hindered by a totally unreasonable combination of inappropriate grants, naive jurors, and lawyers cashed up to record levels.” As an implementor, rather than a speculator, he may have had a different ahah?

  • MonkeyWork

    Hey everybody, I want to be famous!

    My book about the trial is coming soon. Thanks America!

  • Jellybellys

    Is she single?

  • tlm4594

    Wow you have to be kidding me. This is how the Jury came to their decision? A Billion Dollar Decision? The Biggest decision in the tech industry? A decision that may change the way companies can innovate? Wow this is very scary! A 20yr old wouldn’t take anyone else’s viewpoint, but then he came to realize. What???

  • http://twitter.com/crislevin cris levin

    The guy is a nut job.

    He led the jury to ignore instructions, skip discussion and prior arts, assume validity of the clearly invalid patent (square shape+round corners, check out LG Prada).

    He then ignored the instruction of compensation calculation.

    This guy is a total nut job and willfully ignores the jury instructions, as such, it should be overturned.

  • EC8CH

    Apple profits on ignorance of general public… again.

  • W. Paul Schenck

    This was a huge miscarriage of justice and a great victory for frivolous litigation!

  • User10

    So basically this guy decided to defend a patent as his own (obviously disregarding any attempt to avoid bias). Then he blatantly ignored (and admitted) that he wanted this to be “painful”. Definitely not a punishment. Then in the look and feel department, because he was primarily considering looks, he basically decided “to support” the claim that a rectangle with rounded corners just looks too much like an iPhone. As much as I do respect this guy for trying, he made a mistake fatal to justice by deciding to defend the patents as if they were his own.

  • droyd4life

    Apple can suck it. Can’t wait for them to get sued out the a**.

  • Mark F

    We should have this guy interviewed a little more so Samsung could save up some bullets to shoot back when they file for a mistrial !!

  • Carlos

    watch his mail box.

  • Robert King

    Bottom line, if I hand a Samsung phone to someone and tell them they have an Apple iphone, not one of them is going to assume I’m right and walk away. They know the Apple logo, they know the actual, detailed look of the phone. Even the most ardent retard among them is going to be able to tell the difference between a Samsung and an Apple.

    I’m waiting for Apple to say it has rights to white and black phones with capacitive touch screens, now.

  • David Landry

    How could he reason that because the Diamond Touch software could not be run on the Apple devices that this exempts Apple from infringing on prior art, yet doesn’t apply the same test for whether Samsung infringed on Apple?? Since Samsung Touchwiz and Android do not run on Apple devices, then they too are ‘not interchangeable’ … what a crock ‘o shite …. bias much Mr. Hogan?

    • frankandsimple

      you don’t know what you are talking.. Apple infringing on a patent is not an issue in contention at all.. it was whether prior art would invalidate Apple’s patents.. and it was conclusively proven that the “prior art” that Samsung was basing it’s plagiarism on.. did not pertain to the particular patents or the limits it covered.

      • AdamSchuster

        The jury didn’t look at it to see if it pertained to the patents or limits they covered. Apparently, they disregarded the previous art because it would not run on the apple hardware. Or are you saying that the jury foreman is lying when he said that is how he explained it to the jury?

        • frankandsimple

          You misunderstood what the foreman said.. He said prior art does NOT apply in the situation .. thereby rendering Apple’s patent system as valid… and not invalid as Samsung would have others believe. Apple’s patent system is applicable to the behavior.. regardless of the platform used.. The jurors obviously know Samsung and Apple are running two different platforms.. and yet they upheld the Apple patents and held Samsung in Violation. It would be preposterous to think jurors would disregard previous art just because it was on a different platform. Previous art was a moot point as concluded by the jurors.

          • AdamSchuster

            How am I misunderstanding what he said? He said it very clearly. He said since the prior art application wouldn’t run on Apple’s platform, it didn’t apply.

            It’s obvious that the behavior was in use prior to being used and patented by apple. Since they patented a behavior and not the specific manner in which the behavior is coded, the prior art is certainly applicable. It looks like you are reading what you want to from his statements, not me misunderstanding what he said. This man should not have done these interviews. Whether he is accurately describing what occurred, he is making it appear that they did not follow the law when deliberating.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001458670467 Tyler Cameron

    I was confused with how they came to the conclusion that the Epic 4G (original) somehow infringed on the iPhone’s design… they look completely different…
    And even more confusing was somehow, I think 6(?) Samsung phones infringed on Apple’s patent for the back of the iPhone?.. Wut?
    The front of a Galaxy S III looks more similar to an the front of an iPhone than the back of ANY Samsung phone looks like the back of an iPhone! The back of Samsung phones look exactly like… the back of a Samsung phone. Last I checked, no iPhone had that little concave hump toward the bottom that most all Samsung’s have, nor a pertruding camera.

  • Brett

    That man’s collar is atrocious.

  • cb2000a

    Great ammo for Samsung’s appeal. .

  • MrEnglish

    …and the pundits ring out across the land on a verdict they don’t like. Samsung lost. boohoo.

  • Dane Carpenter

    Samsung does deserve to get in trouble for their icons looking the same. When the original Galaxy S came out my first thought was:

    “Wow! Samsung is trying to make a first generation iPhone for Android users!”

    I loved the specs of the Galaxy S, but hated the looks. I went ahead and purchased the Droid X for those reason. I didn’t want to be another iPhone owner wanna be.

    I can understand if Samsung put the center home button below the screen to help with people transitioning from iPhone. I could even understand if the icons were done similarly for the same reason. I don’t know if that was there reasoning or not. Heck, they could have just been trying to get the crowd that wanted to get an iPhone, but it wasn’t available to them, or was too expensive. Galaxy S was available on most carriers unlike the iPhone at the time.

    As a designer, I am always conflicted with designing something new and awesome, or designing something similar. I normally end up having to go with something similar. Something similar is always easier for the customer to use and for the directors to wrap their head around. I think that is why the iPhone is so popular for the non technical groups. Basic features of the iPhone have not changed that much since it’s debut in 2007.

    Apple didn’t invent the smartphone, but they did make a smartphone that was more desired and easier to use. (At least that is how they marketed it)

    However, shape of the phone for me is an issue. I don’t think a rectangle with rounded corners should have any merit on the case. My Cingular 8525 (HTC TyTN) back in late 2005 had rounded corners and a center button below the touch screen. I don’t think this is something that should be even considered.

    • frankandsimple


      I don’t think this is something that should be even considered.”‘
      and it was not even considered. .. or anything that went in favor of Apple in the lawsuit

  • AlexKCMO

    Not that I agree with him, but he is an engineer who owns a hard drive patent. I don’t think tech background needs to be in quotes.

    • frankandsimple

      It HAS to be in quotes so that Droid Life can cast aspersions and trivialize the credibility of someone they don’t agree with. Why attack an argument when you can easily attack the person making the argument?