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!

  • https://www.facebook.com/aaron.williams.125 Champion1229

    This dude is an ass and I bet if you looked at his financial records you would find a huge deposit from Apple Inc. I feel as tho just because Samsung is from a foriegn counry they are being treated unfairly and its just down right wrong. Samsung plays just as big of a part in the American Economy as any other company, including Apple, and they should be treated as a valued asset to the American Economy.

  • Scott Hartman

    The part that should make you REALLY uncomfortable is just before 3:30, when he says that he realized that Apple’s ’306 patent couldn’t be invalidated by the prior art because you couldn’t make Apple’s solution run on the previous processor, meaning it wasn’t “interchangeable”. Great, except that you can’t make Samsung’s implementation run on an iPhone nativly either. Basically, he is holding prior art arguments to be specific to the implementation (which would be fine) but then applies the general idea (not the implementation) to hold Samsung as infringing. This is simply unacceptable and should be enough all by itself for Samsung to get a mistrial declared.

    Not that I’ve come to expect any competency out of Samsung’s legal team, but this should be a home run. That and when he later talks about punishing Samsung, even though the jury instructions explicitly said to only award actual damages, not punitive ones (which is up to the judge).

    WOW.

    • TheDrizzle

      > “Not that I’ve come to expect any competency out of Samsung’s legal team…”

      Why not? What have they done? It seems to me they did a great job in an unfair trial.

      • Scott Hartman

        Um, really? They didn’t once form a coherent counter narrative to Apple’s “Samsung copied our originality” storyline, and any trial lawyer will tell you the importance of creating a narrative for your side of the story to fall into. They also utterly failed to get the issue of patent validity framed properly, right up to the final jury instructions, where the question of whether Apple’s patents were valid was asked AFTER the question of whether Samsung had infringed. Think about that for a second, and ask you how anyone could have let that go through.

        Then there are lots of other things – it’s clear listening to the foreman that he swayed a group that otherwise disagreed, but how on earth did they not ask prospective jurors whether or not they owned patents? That’s an obvious disqualification, as someone with an ownership stake will tend to side with the people protecting a similar stake (and indeed, that’s exactly what the foreman has said he did).

        Also, the time management was just awful – not just with witness examination, but even on closing arguments the Samsung lawyer ended up skipping almost a third of his slides and saying things like “I don’t have time to go into this, but it shows that we didn’t infringe” just to get through. The allotted time for closing statements have been known for months, how do you not practice your closing statement to make sure it’s the right length?

        I can’t think of the last time I’ve seen such an incompetent show put on by high-priced corporate lawyers.

  • kidheated

    Can’t say I’m surprised… quite the opposite, in fact. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, you know what I mean. It’s never exactly the cream of the crop that you are stuck in a room with. Most people on the panel are there cause they are too stupid to think of an excuse to get out of it. The caliber of individuals is very similar to being at the DMV. It is remarkable how dumb people really are, not to mention how incredibly biased. I know it sucks, but next time you get that little tear off envelope in the mail, actually go through with it. It’s a great learning experience. The one universal truth you will get out of it, is that you never ever want to be judged by a “jury of your peers.” Our legal system is a joke and not a funny one at that.

  • Saul Goodman

    My client (Samsung) pleads insanity on the matter, they had no idea what they were doing at the time. Therefore cannot be held liable for their actions.

  • billy routh

    This guy is the biggest Idiot I have ever heard

  • Adam Brandt

    This guy sounds like Opie the retard

  • http://twitter.com/tarund TarunD

    Well, I can see there are many of you angry about this useless trial. I will be going back to watching what’s NASA up to with Curiosity, you know, actual science and moving humanity forward with space exploration. All this bickering over companies that only care about profits and hardly ever their consumers.

  • ajaxman93

    So basically he took the evidence, fit it into his own experience with patents and made his choice as if it would’ve affected him personally.

  • Manny

    After reading some of the comments most if not all are upset about the result of the trial. My big question is what do you guys expect ? After 2007 everybody made a device to compete with the iphone( well not bb they just tanked) and came up with devices like the og droid or the incredible. Samsung got lazy and gave us the galaxy s line..They got what they deserved. Maybe samsung should just let Apple buy them out since they want so much to be like apple.

  • james

    i’m more interested in finding out who SHE is, come to papa

  • Ethan

    Apple’s latest release: i’MANIDIOT

  • http://twitter.com/codelinx abba dalla

    My opinion:
    I think he’s a fool he proves he was unfit to help this judgment be fair at around 6 minutes he says we had to convince ourselves to be unanimous meaning they swayed people based on opinion not fact. He seems like he’s enjoying the limelight instead of taking the facts and applying them.

  • LionStone

    Yea I saw this tool on the news last night…he royally messed up. After it’s all said and done, apple may only get maybe half of the decision amount.

  • DrewNusser

    I wonder how they decided to award Samsung 0 for the patents that Apple infringed on. Samsung went and proved that the iPhone infringed on them, and it seems that they just got completely ignored.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508356379 Adam Ropic

      i completely agree with you, and its been said probably thousands of times, the notification bar that apple stole..

      • http://asten77.myopenid.com/ Asten

        Yeah, but that a) isn’t yet a patent, b) isn’t samsung’s pending patent.

  • joejoe5709

    I unfortunately only have time to watch the first half. I like this guy. He’s very intelligent. I respect his opinion and how methodical he was. His mistake was when he pretended to be in Apple’s shoes and pretended it was his own patents to protect. That’s not right. He needed to be impartial to either side. How about if he put himself in Samsung shoes and pretended that he had come up with similar, but very clearly different products. What would have happened then? Either way, I smell an appeal.

  • http://www.matthewdlyons.com/ matthewdlyons

    I don’t see the need to run this guy down. It doesn’t accomplish much. If there are opportunities to appeal, you can be sure that Samsung will pursue them.

    I think think Hogan makes clear that the Android OS was not the issue, which should help in some other suits coming up. If we’re being honest, I think that most of us saw the first Galaxy S revealed at CTIA a few years back and, immediately, said “Oh my god! It looks JUST like an iPhone.”

    In my opinion, Samsung took that lazy way to design and implementation. They not only viewed iPhone as a competitor, but as a literal model for Samsung smartphones. For design — ONLY — I have no issues with the verdict. I do have problems, however, with how the jury ruled differently on phones using the exact same UI. That’s where I think Samsung will start to pick away at the jury’s decision. Inconsistencies are what might reduce the judgement, but not completely reverse the decision.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.cunningham.505 David Cunningham

      Exactly.

  • http://twitter.com/THT_PANDA Dorian Delandro

    Wow….he mentioned 2 failing companies when lauding the fact that they are different in design.

  • http://twitter.com/THT_PANDA Dorian Delandro

    So what if Xerox came and sued Apple?

  • EC8CH

    Here’s the quote:

    “…wether or not the prior really did invalidate that patent, and so with that moment that I had, I relealized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vise versa and that means that they’re not interchagable, and that just that just changed everything right there”

    So because software from the prior art couldn’t be directly copied over and dumped onto an iPhone this guy convinced himself and the rest of the jury that it didn’t invalidate any of apple’s patent claims. No matter if the same methods where used or not, to this guy if you can’t boot up the Diamondtouch OS on an iPhone it doesn’t matter.

    This…. is….. wrong.

    • frankandsimple

      It’s not wrong.. because the patents in contention are software based.. and not hardware alone.

      • Jeff Tycz

        so then how does he have any right to say samsung infringed on it? its on different software and different hardware……flawed logic

        • frankandsimple

          you don’t get it!.. You cannot use prior art as somehow invalidating a patent.. just because something similar was done on a different platform. That’s like a movie maker in Spanish lifting off a story from a Hollywood director and saying.. “hey listen.. this movie is in Spanish.. it’s not English.. so there is no rip off here”.

          • EC8CH

            ummm no… that’s the whole point of prior art…. to invalidate patent claims that can be demonstrated where invented by someone else prior to the patent filing.

          • Jeff Tycz

            yes but what he is saying that because it was not created on a mobile device its not invalid which then brings us back to how you should not be able to patent something from a different “ecosystem” if you will

          • EC8CH

            Yes, maybe you could make that BS claim, apple’s lawyers tried something close. They said the prior art wasn’t applicable because the diamondtouch screen used a projector, but samsung expert witness correctly pointed out that the patent claims didn’t depend on the construction of the touchscreen itself.

            But what this guy describes as the apparent reasoning for disregarding the prior art is just insane.

          • frankandsimple

            He .. and the the other 11 jurors are not insane.. you are. in your blind love for android.
            Patent systems are not universal like you make it out to be.. they have specific limits within which the patent is valid.. and beyond which the patent is invalid. As the foreman said.. they went patent by patent.. limit by limit.. and in every single one of them Samsung was well within the limits that is protected by the Patent and thus in violation.
            Don’t just spew non sense without understanding anything.

          • EC8CH

            you’re still wrong…

            and this was a civil not criminal case, so your juror count is off as well.

          • frankandsimple

            okay, I am off on my jury count. But I am not wrong.. neither are the jurors. You are wrong. plain and simple.

          • http://profiles.google.com/ryanstrat Ryan Strat

            There were only 9 Jurors.

          • frankandsimple

            It didn’t fit the parameters to invalidate the patent because of Apple’s claims/Samsung’s violations.. falling well within the limits of the patent

          • v8dreaming

            Then by that logic, Samsung’s something similar on a different platform shouldn’t violate the patent that apple has.

          • frankandsimple

            but Samsung willfully violated the very patent.. Prior Art was just a hogwash that Samsung tried to inject just to distract from the violations they committed. The patents that Samsung Violated were well within the limits that the patents protected Apple.

          • http://profiles.google.com/dr.boyd Jonathan Boyd

            1. Prior art doesn’t count because it’s on a different platform.
            2. Android devices using protected ideas DO count.
            3. The Iphone runs Android…. I always knew it!

          • frankandsimple

            Wrong. prior art doesn’t count because It is baseless. Don’t think that whatever Samsung did was based on Prior art.. it wasn’t. It was based on Patents that were obtained by Apple. Prior art is just a hogwash term that Samsung tried to throw to show that the plagiarism that they did was somehow common place occurrence in “prior art”

          • EC8CH

            Oh!!! so you think Samsung’s argument was they were coping from the prior art and not from Apple’s patents.

            I understand better now why you’re wrong, but you’re still wrong.

          • frankandsimple

            yea.. you make a lot of sense .. ..

          • http://profiles.google.com/dr.boyd Jonathan Boyd

            Here’s some reading:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#Usage_in_litigation
            Key sentence: “If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.” Several of the patents that Samsung is accused of infringing have prior art that existed prior to Apple’s patent applications (which means the patent itself is invalid). Samsung can sell all of the phones they want using slide-to-unlock in Denmark because the court rightly realized that the Apple patent was invalid (as many of the patents involved in this suit will be on appeal).

          • frankandsimple

            I am sure it is not as simple as that. The crux of the issue being what really can be classified as “invention” in prior art.. and what really was actually done by Apple and whether it can be classified as “invention” as applicable to smart phones and the way it was implemented. Obviously the US patent system and the jurors saw it in favor of Apple being the inventor here and not prior art.
            It’s interesting.. we’ll see how the appeal process goes.

          • TheWenger

            Using your logic, if Apple’s patents aren’t invalid because it’s on a different platform than Diamondtouch, then Samsung also isn’t infringing, because it’s on a different platform.

          • EC8CH

            “you don’t get it!.. You cannot use prior art as somehow invalidating a patent..”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

            “If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.”

          • frankandsimple

            Wikipedia is not saying to the contrary.. you are just being selective in what you wanna pick and what you wanna discard.. like I’ve said.. prior art is just a hogwash that Samsung is introducing to support it’s rip offs.. prior art is not even applicable in this particular lawsuit.. which is why the jurors didn’t buy it .. and no body with a brain does it either.
            What Samsung violated was well within the realms of what is protected by the patent.. prior art would have applied if Samsung did something that was beyond the realms of the patents in questions.

          • EC8CH

            Samsung submitted prior art as evidence to prove that the patent claims they were being accused of infringing were in fact invalid.

            That is not hogwash. If the prior art demonstrates that the patent claims where in fact invented and demonstrated by someone else prior to apple’s patent filing, then apple’s claim are invalid.

            I would have pasted the entire wiki article for you here, but I doubt it would have done you any good.

          • JD

            agreed to what you say !

            why is it so hard .. yes samsung copied .. but it is on a diffrent platform … which aple argues doesnt count .. so how does samsungs infringement count ?

    • Jeff Tycz

      Exactly, When I first watched this video this morning I almost put my fist through my work computer screen. But what I dont understand is how he can claim samsung infringes on this patent when its on a different processor…… :-/

  • frankandsimple


    I would also love to hear your thoughts.”
    My thoughts are.. you should stop acting as if you are personally hurt. Samsung is not good for android anyway.. when compared to Motorola and HTC.. at least they do things their own way. I would love to see someone like Motorola succeed with android. because they really focus on quality and innovation.. as opposed to cheap a$$ samsung.

    No matter what you fandroids feel.. the truth of the matter is none of you guys have seen the evidence.. Droid life does NOT want to present the evidence against Samsung and the violations it did.. none of you were in the jury.. so stop trivializing the violations (no, Apple did not sue samsung because their phones were rectangular).. stop pretending that you know more than lawyers who are paid millions of dollars.. or the engineers who make more in a month than what you make in a year.
    Just stop being cowboys.. stop being little whiny girls. Move on knowing for a fact that this WILL be good for consumers.. because you won’t be flooded with cheap hastily done ripoffs anymore.. you’ll get quality products that stand out and are one of a kind.

    • EC8CH

      or you could consider that based on this man’s comments it is very likely that apple’s patent claims were not found to be invalid based on the flawed legal understanding of a single juror who was regarded wrongfully so as an expert by the rest of the jury.

      I think many of us “fandroids” do think Samsung went too far in trying to imitate apple’s design, I among them.

      What is wrong with this verdict is the apparent reasoning behind disregarding the prior art evidence brought forward by Samsung.

      • frankandsimple

        I don’t think there is flaw in the logic of dismissing prior art claims by Samsung. Prior art only applies when you are comparing apples to apples (no pun intended). .. ESPECIALLY when the violations in contention are based on software.

        • EC8CH

          OK…

          diamondtouch software can not run on an iphone processor
          iphone software can not run on a diamondtouch processor

          therefore patent claims are not invalid regardless if the patented behavior is the same or not.

          Then…

          android software can not run on an iphone processor
          iphone software can not run on an android processor

          therefore patent claims are not infringed regardless if the patented behavior is the same or not.

          • frankandsimple

            No.

            What he is saying is that Apple’s patent are Valid.. because regardless of prior art.. Apple patented the system of the patented behavior. Prior art does not invalidate Apple’s patent… and since apple has the behavior patented.. it does NOT mean it the patent will become invalid when a different platform or hardware configuration is used.

          • EC8CH

            congrats… you’ve officially proven you’re more clueless on this subject than Vel Hogan.

            Honestly you should be proud…. that’s quite an accomplishment.

          • frankandsimple

            call yourself a douche and do us all a favor.. my 5 year old has more comprehension skills than you. Yea.. feel free to go and give your brain fart ephiphanies to Samsung for the next trial.

          • AdamSchuster

            That’s what the point of prior art is. When a behavior is patented, prior art of the behavior shows that the behavior is known and in use prior to apple’s development and patenting of said behavior. It absolutely should invalidate any patent on said behavior.

          • EC8CH

            Yeah… he doesn’t get that and I don’t think he’s ever going to.

          • frankandsimple

            nope it doesn’t. Let me give you an example. A work of fiction is protected under the patent/copyright system.. One can invalidate the copyright or patent just because the specifics of the creation is exemplified in other aspects of real or fictional life.

          • AdamSchuster

            A work of fiction is protected under copyright, which is completely different than the patent system. You cannot copy write a behavior. You copywrite the code to implement the behavior. Your example makes no sense.

            I’m not sure where your ideas about patent law came from, but prior art would absolutely be applicable to invalidate apple’s patent. The pinch to zoom example given by Samsung sure seems to a lot of patent attorneys to be sufficient for invalidating that patent.

          • frankandsimple

            I beg to differ.. you are basing your whole argument in favor of Samsung by making an assumption that whatever Samsung did was validated by Prior Art. Even if the behavior was present in prior art.. the particular implementation was what Samsung blatantly copied.. and which was protected by patent. It is presumptuous to sit here and question the patenting system and conclude a patent is invalid just because YOU feel a behavior is reflected in prior art. It is nothing short of ridiculous. Samsung’s internal memos, Google’s own letter to Samsung.. all indicate Samsung’s obsession with copying apple.. and only because they crossed the line.. did even Google asked them to change their designs. The pinch and zoom patent that Samsung violated was not mere pinch and zoom.. It was continuing a multi touch gesture AFTER releasing and replacing a point within a certain duration. This is NOT in the prior art that was shown.. and hence prior art was thrown out.

          • AdamSchuster

            No, I am not questioning the patent system, though it does indeed deserve some questioning. I am basing my argument on what the jury foreperson described as what happened in the deliberations. They say they did not attempt to see if Apple’s patent was invalidated by the prior art, since this man swayed the jury to believe that the prior art was invalid since it wouldn’t run on apple’s system. I have not argued that samsung didn’t copy trade dress or cross a line. I have argued about what this man has said happened during deliberations. What he describes is not what should have occurred when deliberating whether this prior art invalidates the patent. I wasn’t in court. I didn’t hear Samsung or Apple’s arguments about the prior art. But, the jury should have considered it as it related to the limits of the patent, instead of deciding since it wouldn’t run on Apple’s system, it was of no consequence. That’s not how you decide if prior art invalidates a patent.

          • frankandsimple

            I think you are making too much of the foreman’s one statement.. what he isn’t telling you and which I am sure was on the table during deliberations and which eventually led to him to frame it in simpler terms viz-a-vie different platforms and different hardware.. is the fact that Apple’s bouncing patent system is actually exactly the reverse of what the prior art showed. The LaunchTile system, brainchild of Benjamin Bederson, was developed in 2004 and allowed users to navigate through an interface of tiles by sweeping back and forth. But it also had a built-in feature that caused the image on the screen to snap-back when a user failed to reach a certain threshold.Apple’s patent is an inverse of this.
            The foreman and others in the jury know this.. He just worded it simply to the reporter that Apple’s software (and what they patented) is different from what was demonstrated in prior art.

          • AdamSchuster

            Like I said, he should not have done these interviews. He sure made it seem that he swayed the jury by explaining to them that the prior art was invalid because it wouldn’t run on Apple’s system. He didn’t mention anything about the prior art working differently than Apple’s patents. Though, specifically in the pinch to zoom patent, the prior art sure does look like it does what Apple’s patent describes. Whether what he is saying is what actually occurred, I don’t know. But, he has made it seem that he changed the minds of some jurors with his “ah ha” moment, explaining that it wouldn’t work on their platform. He doesn’t mention anything else about prior art in the interviews. So, whether I’m making too much of his statements is yet to be seen. We don’t know what happened. From what the man is saying, though, it seems like you are assuming what happened and disregarding his statements as to what happened.

          • frankandsimple

            You are not being unreasonable. I will give you that.

          • frankandsimple
          • AdamSchuster

            That’s a very interesting article. It still doesn’t change that the jury foreperson told the jury they could ignore the prior art, since it couldn’t run on apple’s system. I didn’t hear the evidence as it related to the prior art, but, if Samsung used that as prior art, they must have thought that it was relevant to the claims in the patent. All I’ve seen of the Diamond Touch system is what was in the youtube video. I don’t know if it’s implementation is the same as Apple’s or not. But, it would have been nice if the jury had looked at it to see if it did invalidate apple’s patent.

    • BroRob

      Ummm… some of us “fandroids” ARE lawyers and engineers. One could argue that you are being a “cowboy” by the post after post of how you are right and the majority here are wrong. If you TRULY believed you were right you wouldn’t feel the need to convince the rest of us we are wrong.

      • frankandsimple

        How silly!.. this is NOT between me and you silly girls.. it is between Apple and Samsung, the judge and jury and the legal system of the United States.. I’m just expressing my amazement at you cowboys who sit on your arm chairs and throw out theories and philosophies without having a clue of what went on or what the real issues are.

        • BroRob

          Ah and yet you result to calling me names like “silly girl” and “cowboy” while trolling this post ALL day yesterday. You have proved your point sir, I have been bullied in to your viewpoint. Now if you can excuse me, I’m off to return my Android powered phone for the far more innovative iPhone.

          • frankandsimple

            I am disrespectful to people who are not respectful. If I call names it is a reaction to something.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=701518429 Joshua Haug

    15:30-15:50 Well he just closed the Apple v Motorola case fore them I guess he’s the expert.

  • durangojim

    I think this guy thinks he is smarter than he actually is when it comes to law and decided this case on emotional issues, which he convinced himself were logical based on his past history as a patent holder. Interesting he didn’t find against Apple with regards to 3G patents.

  • http://twitter.com/cjgruber .cj

    .
    Ok, thats the game:

    1) Provide a patent to the patent office. They don’t have the resources/willingness to check about prior art (because they think, if something is wrong a judge will clear the case)
    2) Let a jury (of main street people) with no expert background in this topic decide, if a patent is prior art or trivial …

    … bravo, non-experts are now responsible for patent-processes in the US of A
    .

  • marcusmaximus04

    So, he claims they didn’t try to punish samsung, just make it clear that because they infringed they had to pay the price. Ummm…..

  • Greg Morgan

    I think we would like to hear Droid-Life’s opinion of the above video?

  • http://twitter.com/spdivr1122 Stephen

    so was the jury a bunch of 90 year olds who have no idea what theyre talking about??? or just this guy.

    • EC8CH

      This guy has a patent, so it sounds like the rest of the jury put a lot of weight behind his opinions.

  • Petro Dragoumanos

    This type juror is why judges can set aside jury verdicts. He admits thru out the whole interview that he didn’t follow the instructions to the jury.

    • EC8CH

      Well he says that he did, the problems start when he describes his actions.

      Bringing in his own (and incorrect) arguments on the validity of the prior art instead of relying on the testimony that was presented at trail is where I think he goes wrong.

  • Pmcdeed

    who knew you could patent “feel”… such an arbitrary decision

  • Jeremy Gentry

    so apparently motorola will be suing apple over certain patants that the iphone ipad violate. and we all know which company is behind motorola :) they are seeking a Ban on these devices. I CANT WAIT TO SEE THAT ONE

  • Larizard

    11:30 mark is very CRUCIAL for Android OS as a whole.

  • EvanTheGamer

    I want to kick this Apple lover in the balls for what this @$$clown has done. F’n idiot.

  • Tim Swann

    This whole trial and how they came to a decision proves how flawed the patent system – at least how it relates to software. When a patent is issued or questioned, a “jury” of software engineers should determine if said patent is too generic or not. Experts on such matters should be determining patent validity, not people who don’t understand IP. that’s my thought anyway.

  • http://twitter.com/d1g1K Dave Kochman

    Given such an unprecedented opportunity to influence the markets and the audacious conclusions of the jury, it would be remiss to not launch an inquiry regarding this guy’s investment positions and investigate a potential conflict of interest.

  • summit1986

    My high school cross country coach had a patent… he was no expert on the patent system, that’s for sure. His patent was something that held a volume of beer while snowboarding… Burton snowboards actually bought the patent from him. That being said, APPEAL!

  • Tim Swann

    I am waiting for Google to sue Apple for implementing swipe down notifications. BOOM! Apple blatantly copied that key feature of Android.

    • ceejw

      Google doesn’t have a patent on swip down notifications. I think they applied for one though, it just hasn’t been awarded yet.

    • Tim Swann

      though I think apple will use the defense “Android is open so we can do whatever we want”

      • kevin

        So does that mean since android is open that apple can freely take whatever they see fit from android but android cant do the same thing back at them? This is a serious question.

        • Jeff Tycz

          No they cannot take whatever they want

      • Jeff Tycz

        You cant be more wrong

        • Tim Swann

          I was being sarcastic if you couldn’t tell

      • Jeremy Bardrof

        There is a difference between a patented piece of functionality (Google did get the patent on the notification system in question) and an Open OS. It doesn’t matter if the OS is open source, Apple still can’t use the patented feature for free anymore.

        • Tim Swann

          I get that…I was being sarcastic with the extra comment

  • Nowayjose

    Can someone buy me a galaxy S3 so I can get rid of my iPhone ?

    • Tim Swann

      I have been recommending the S3 for a while, but after the horrible customer service I have had from them, I don’t recommend any Samsung product on that basis.

      • Tim Swann

        for those of you that have click “dislike” you haven’t been sent multiple replacement devices (not S3 though) that are garbage and then get treated like crap on the phone.

    • Bionicman

      the galaxy s3 is an amazing phone. i actually enjoy using it sometimes over my GNex—dont hate me!

    • BroRob

      Why? It is now clear that they are the same thing. Any Samsung phone = i*hone … oops, almost forgot this:

  • Tim Swann

    The one thing I think they got wrong was saying that a design on basic shapes – like a rectangle with rounded edges.

  • Jeff Tycz

    its just unfortunate that he was able to convince the jury of his bad logic..just goes to show that being educated does not mean you have intelligence

  • digitalicecream

    I think this is excellent! Followed by your excellent point! I move for an appeal. SAMSUNG, pay attention! Also, please appeal in some other state. Apparently apple pwns California.

  • Bill Kenderman

    The foreman makes a very strong case. I think we all know Samsung infringed. Those Koreans should have settled before this came to court.

    • Bob G

      You assumed that Apple would have accepted a settlement.

      p.s. this foreman does make a very strong case……. for why people are idiots.

      • EC8CH

        idiots make sense to idiots

    • Ethan

      Yes, you don’t sound biased at all. “Those Koreans” XD

      • Bill Kenderman

        You’re right, I meant to type “Those dog eating Koreans”. Thanks.

  • http://twitter.com/derrichh Derric@HoodHype.com

    should make the appeal process that much easier

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1808599231 Ariel Felder

    He admits to violating the one big rule of jury trials. You as a juror cannot bring evidence from outside into the deliberations. Not only does he admit that he violates the most basic juror instruction he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue at hand. He says that it can’t be prior art as the new implementation wouldn’t run on the old device. I’m pretty sure that IOS wouldn’t run very well on any of the supposedly infringing Samsung devices either

    • EC8CH

      Exactly

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.cunningham.505 David Cunningham

      I don’t believe he brought any outside evidence in, what he said was he went home and put himself in that situation and thought about the patent and came to a conclusion or better understanding then brought that understanding to the jury. Although I do agree with you comment about “the new implementation wouldn’t run on the old device,” that really wasn’t a valid point in my mind.

      • cphilano

        I honestly feel like his aha moment was a pretty biasing moment. He says that he thought about whether he could defend these patents if they were his. At that point he was acting as a patent lawyer instead drawing a conclusion based on evidence presented to him. It wasn’t within his realm of expertise to determine if he could defend Apple’s patents or not. His job was to determine if the patents were valid based on the law and the expertise given to him by the plaintiffs and defendants. He ranked his experience over that of experts that were brought in to clarify the issues. With him saying that he thought of could he defend these patents if they were his, he pretty much opened an appeals case for Samsung. It wasn’t his job to defend the patents.

      • DeathfireD

        Pretty sure he should have been kicked off jury duty simply for having a patent on a trial about patents. This is the exact reason they didn’t let people who owned iPhones or Android devices on the jury, the trial has to be unbias. Why the judge allowed this man in is beyond me and after watching the video we can clearly see he heavily influenced and otherwise shifted everyone’s opinion.

  • r0lct

    Yeah, I I’m in the middle on this one (Samsung definitely copied, but a lot of the patents were also BS). However after listening to this guy, it’s pretty clear he likely drove this home Apple’s way.

    • http://twitter.com/LBJAY02 LBJAY02

      Coppied??? No, inspired by… Yes.

      • r0lct

        I think it’s fair to say all OEMs were inspired to some degree by the iPhone, but only one of them looks a lot like it.

        • http://asten77.myopenid.com/ Asten

          The iPhone?

    • noc007

      He’s a patent owner himself and I wonder if that brought any bias into it.

    • TheDrizzle

      I foresee a lot of free Apple swag coming his way.

      • Chris Hollenbeck

        If I received a bunch of Apple swag I would send it back.
        ;-)

        • http://asten77.myopenid.com/ Asten

          I’d destroy it in a comical and creative fashion on video, and post it on youtube.

  • triangle8

    I’m trying to keep silent since I don’t have anything positive to say about this guy, but he really isn’t helping his own cause by going out and talking to people like this…

  • Prime7

    F this guy.

    • paul_cus

      haha

  • http://www.gizmoninja.com/ Tabe

    Ok, why do I not see an embedded video nor a video link?

    • Larizard

      watching it right now

      • http://www.gizmoninja.com/ Tabe

        Well I assumed that people are watching it, since there are comments on it. Just don’t know why it’s not showing for me!

        • http://www.gizmoninja.com/ Tabe

          Weird… Video is there in Firefox but not in Chrome.

          • http://twitter.com/havens1515 Randroid

            I’m using Chrome, and it worked just fine. Weird.

          • http://www.gizmoninja.com/ Tabe

            Yeah.. Don’t know what the deal was, but it’s working in Chrome now. Probably just network issues here at work or something.

          • RCCola85

            It’s a Flash video, Chrome for Android doesn’t support Flash.

          • http://www.gizmoninja.com/ Tabe

            I’m on desktop Chrome

          • RCCola85

            I have no idea then, lol.

  • blah

    Yep, at about the 3-4 min mark, the guy says something about not being compatible with older hardware, therefore prior art doesn’t count?? or something along those lines. Anyway, he is FULL OF IT!! WRONG on so many levels. No freaking wonder they came out the way they did.

    • Jeff Tycz

      and also by his logic of a different processor then samsung also wouldnt be infringing either since its not on the same processor….its just so stupid

      • blah

        he convinced the whole Jury to rule against samsung because of this false assumption/belief. UNREAL.

      • EC8CH

        Yes by his logic the prior art doesn’t invalid apple’s claims because their software can’t run on an iPhone, but then Samsung also should not be found to be infringing because their software can’t be run on an iPhone either.

        He must never have carried his flawed logic to conclusion however.

        • TheWenger

          It sucks they didn’t examine the obviousness of the patents as well as the prior art. That alone should have invalidated them.

          • EC8CH

            Yes, apparently speed in coming to a verdict was considered more important than spending the time to debate one of the core issues of this trial which is the validity of broad software patents based upon obviousness and prior art.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=701518429 Joshua Haug

      Then wouldn’t by the same logic the apple code not being compatible with the processors in the Samsung phones? Last time I checked no one but apple is uses the A5.

      • EC8CH

        Exactly… before I couldn’t understand how none of Apple’s patent claims were ruled as invalid, but now after hearing this I just find it ridiculous that such a huge verdict can be based in large part on such wrong judgement.

        I’m sure he’s a nice enough guy… but he’s just wrong.

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

        I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I’m just gonna point out that as of now, and as far back as I can remember, smartphones use ARM architecture processors. An OS coded for ARM architecture can theoretically run on either an A5 or an Exynos, as they’re the same in architecture, just as Windows runs on both AMD and Intel because those are both x64-based processors.

        • EC8CH

          I think you just thought about this with about 1000X more insight than Mr. Hogan did when he had his original ah-ha moment.

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

            When I heard him drop that incompatibility bs, he lost all credit. He’s a manipulating bastard. Reminds me of republicans :p

          • http://asten77.myopenid.com/ Asten

            politicians, period.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannyborst Danny Borst

    Guy looks and sounds like a dumb ass

    • http://twitter.com/tarund TarunD

      Did you type this while looking at your reflection on your phone? Just wondering…

  • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

    No surprise here. Guys like this are why the Eastern District of Texas is patent enforcement heaven.

    • Dora the Explora

      The jury was in San Jose, CA. That is more like far northwest Texas.

      • Mattie33

        He is implying that people like this guy abound in the Eastern District of Texas…

        • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

          Correct.

  • http://profiles.google.com/adamtruelove Adam Truelove

    I don’t care who this guy is. I have a problem with a jury making decisions on patent infringements. Shouldn’t people who work with and understand patent law be making these decisions?

    • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

      Same could be said for every area of law and every jury ever.

      • Mattie33

        Not really, few if any understand what patent infringing and patent law entails while most juries understand what murder, DUI’s, and other crimes entail.

        • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

          Totally false. Jurors don’t understand any part of the law, which is why there are always extensive jury instructions. You really think that the average juror is going to have the slightest idea how DNA evidence works, for example? Nope, they have to be taught.

      • Tim Swann

        so should we be changing the jury selection process? not being sarcastic either. Do you think a new selection process would benefit the system?

        • Bob G

          Coin Flipping would be more efficient.

        • TheWenger

          They screen them to make sure they’re “impartial”. In a trial about technology, that usually means they get the oldest or dumbest people possible.

        • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

          I think there is a good argument for that. The establishment of the Federal Circuit in 1982 certainly was a step in that direction, at least for patent cases. But, I think the larger issue is the patent system itself. It hasn’t been meaningfully updated since 1952 and there are legitimate questions as to whether it is even needed anymore.

      • http://profiles.google.com/adamtruelove Adam Truelove

        Not quite. Determining a motive or willful intent or a person’s feeling while commiting a crime is open to interpretation. But deciding if a patent is being violated is a bit different. I realize there are always technical issues that a jury may not be versed in, but patent law is VERY technical.

        • Wakesays

          Patent law is super technical. A jury simply cannot do a good job in a case like this, and more importantly, they should not be asked to. It is not fair on the jurors, it is not fair on the litigants, it’s a waste of judge/court time and, of course, public and litigant money.

          • PATENT LAWYER JD LLM SJD ESQ

            Patent law is actually one of the easiest, most straight forward areas of the law. Where it gets technical, is in the details of each case. But, you also have to remember that a lot of that is not left to the jury. In the Markman hearing stage, the judge decides what the scope of the patents-at-issue are.

          • EC8CH

            So where did this trial go wrong? Should this juror have been allowed to form his own personal case against the validity of the prior art outside of what was presented at trial and use that to persuade fellows jurors about the merits of the prior art invalidating the patent claims?

    • r0lct

      So for murder should the jury be murderers? ;-)

      • Mattie33

        You know except it isnt hard to understand what muder is but it is complicated to understand patent law (109 pages of jury instructions in this case if I remember correctly and as far as I know nowhere near that much in any murder case, yet juries get even these wrong).

        • r0lct

          I was just being sarcastic…

      • http://twitter.com/havens1515 Randroid

        Not at all the same. Anyone can be presented with the distinction of murder 1, murder 2, murder 3, as well as manslaughter 1, 2 and 3, and make an educated decision.

        Patent law is EXTREMELY complicated, and should not be decided upon by random civilians who may not entirely understand the law.

        • http://profiles.google.com/fdec01 Frank DeCrescenzo

          This isn’t true. The average person would not know the difference between murder or manslaughter. They don’t understand the difference between intentional, criminally negligent, etc. A person knowledgeable in law would be far better.

          • http://twitter.com/havens1515 Randroid

            I didn’t say they would know, I said they CAN BE PRESENTED the difference and make an educated decision. You can be presented the law on patents and still be VERY confused.

          • chilltech

            I now this is really late but, I think that might have been true years ago, but with all the law shows, out there, I think that the average person has some idea what the difference between murder and manslaughter are. Even if it isn’t the textbook version of them.

    • JoshGroff

      That would make too much sense.

      • 4n1m4L

        He’s confusing the issue with facts and logic

    • jonny6pak

      Exactly. Generally, a jury might disregard proper legal analysis in any type of case, be it criminal, civil, or what have you. However, we’re talking about a branch of law with highly technical issues and a number of important nuances. A situation where the jury is able to completely misapply law is troublesome. It is what it is, but this highlights some of the issues that stem from jury trials. Thankfully, the legal system allows for an appeals process.

    • noc007

      My post is based on Groklaws analysis of what happened. They were given a multipage document by the judge on guidelines of how they should take the evidence, make decisions, figure out compensation if necessary, etc. Unfortunately this goofball and his colleagues didn’t bother to review the document, which would have taken three days alone by a seasoned lawyer.

      A good example of them ignoring what the judge gave them is they were to determine compensation based on what it probably should have cost the licensee in a normal market and not determine it as a punishment. The jury outright said they took the punishment route. It was either Growlaw or another article I read where they said in these patent trials, juries generally award higher amounts of money than necessary.

      In what I have seen of this case, Samsung did violate Apple’s trade dress in some, not all of their products. I do question the software patents and I generally find them a bit dubious as well. I recall learning about patents in school and I remember part of the point was to protect your product, but it still allowed someone else to come along and make it even better. Right now all I see are companies slamming their lawyer cocks around and innovation being stopped or stifled.

      • http://profiles.google.com/adamtruelove Adam Truelove

        “…I remember part of the point was to protect your product, but it still allowed someone else to come along and make it even better.”

        LOVE THIS RIGHT HERE!!! Hear hear! THIS RIGHT HERE is the problem with the current patent system as it applies to software and the consumer electronics industry. The current patent system does not allow “someone else to come along and make it even better.”

      • ak

        Dubious…I like that word

      • michael arazan

        I wonder how much apple is giving this guy for swinging the decision, and upping the retail amount on what samsung should pay.

    • http://profiles.google.com/fdec01 Frank DeCrescenzo

      That’s a great point. But you can also make that case about just about anything. Medical professionals would make the best jurors in malpractice suits, law enforcement would make the best jurors in police trials, etc. The problem is lawyers would never allow. They need people they can manipulate the easiest.