Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict

With the landmark Apple vs. Samsung patent and design lawsuit resulting a $1 billion verdict for Apple late last week, considerable discussion about the jury's decision-making process has been making the rounds. Several members of the jury, including foreman Velvin Hogan, gave interviews after the trial, but a new video interview of Hogan by Bloomberg Television's Emily Chang provides some additional insight into the jury's thinking. The nearly 17-minute segment covers a number of topics including the jury dynamics, calculation of damages, and how Hogan's own experience with patents and financial statements helped guide the discussion and evaluation.


Hogan notes that he initially thought the case might swing Samsung's way as the jury initially had some difficulty assessing how the validity of the patents should be decided and applied to the case.
We were at a stalemate, but some of the jurors were not sure of the patent prosecution process. Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it. What we did is we started talking about one and when the day was over and I was at home, thinking about that patent claim by claim, limit by limit, I had what we would call an a-ha moment and I suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patent…And with that, I took that story back to the jury and laid it out for them. They understood the points I was talking about and then we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on. We got those all sorted out and decided which ones were valid and which ones were not.

Hogan also reiterates the jury's view that comments by Google demanding that Samsung tweak its product designs to look less similar to the iPhone and iPad were particularly damning, indicating that Samsung's infringement was willful as it took in Google's advice and opted not to follow it.

Overall, the jury found that the evidence in the case "spoke overwhelmingly" to Samsung's infringement, with the jury having put "each side to the test" equally in weighing both validity and infringement claims, working through each of the involved devices and claimed infringements to reach the $1 billion verdict. Hogan also walks through how that dollar amount was reached, using their own calculations of how much Apple lost in profits from sales of the infringing Samsung devices and then adding in royalty amounts to achieve a final number.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

21 months ago

Apple found 12 uninformed people to determine whether or not we get competition in the mobile device market.

Brilliant.


Lol. You can say the result stifles competition over and over and over again but that doesn't make it true. Last time I checked there are plenty of other manufacturers out there making their own phones that will provide great competition for years to come. Competition does not equal clones. You sir don't have the right to call anybody else "uninformed" with the b.s your trying to pass off as fact.
Rating: 45 Positives
21 months ago

He needs to stop talking.
Every time he opens his mouth, he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.
It's bad enough the jury flat out ignored the judges orders on damages, he's now admitting to doing all but taking the role of Apple's counsel in the jury room.


It's called being the foreman, genius.

----------

Apple found 12 uninformed people to determine whether or not we get competition in the mobile device market.

Brilliant.


The jury is selected by both parties, not just the plaintiff.
Rating: 35 Positives
21 months ago
This is like two neighbourhood restaurants. One spent days and night coming up with tasty and new dishes, and tries to cash in on the new ideas. The other restaurant keeps imitating the dish and sells them at a lower price. The residents are happy because they get a similar dish for a lower price. When the 1st chef starts complaining, the neighbours all go to the 2nd chef's defence. The ingredients have always been around, they say, so it's not a copying.

But they don't realize that after a while, the smart chef will be discouraged from creating any more new dishes because it's simply not worth the effort. And they don't realize, sometimes, it is not the one or two ingredients that make the dish tasty. It's the combination on the whole dish.
Rating: 34 Positives
21 months ago
awesome. stellar. fantastic. :) :apple: :apple: :apple:

----------

Apple found 12 uninformed people to determine whether or not we get competition in the mobile device market.

Brilliant.


I believe Samsung agreed to the jury as well. :eek:
Rating: 33 Positives
21 months ago

he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.


Good. They need to win the appeal. Consumers do too. The litigation thugs of Apple need to stop suing over petty stuff like 'pinch-to-zoom.' That's like LG suing Panasonic for putting an 'input' button on their television remote.
Rating: 30 Positives
21 months ago

Lol. You can say the result stifles competition over and over and over again but that doesn't make it true. Last time I checked there are plenty of other manufacturers out there making their own phones that will provide great competition for years to come. Competition does not equal clones. You sir don't have the right to call anybody else "uninformed" with the b.s your trying to pass off as fact.


Well said, sir. Especially the bit in bold.
Rating: 29 Positives
21 months ago
He needs to stop talking.
Every time he opens his mouth, he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.
It's bad enough the jury flat out ignored the judges orders on damages, he's now admitting to doing all but taking the role of Apple's counsel in the jury room.
Rating: 26 Positives
21 months ago
Apple found 12 uninformed people to determine whether or not we get competition in the mobile device market.

Brilliant.
Rating: 24 Positives
21 months ago

He needs to stop talking.
Every time he opens his mouth, he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.
It's bad enough the jury flat out ignored the judges orders on damages, he's now admitting to doing all but taking the role of Apple's counsel in the jury room.


No, if the decision was flawed then we need to know about it. If that means Samsung deserves to win the appeal, then justice will be done.
Rating: 24 Positives
21 months ago

He needs to stop talking.
Every time he opens his mouth, he is helping Samsung's case for appeal.
It's bad enough the jury flat out ignored the judges orders on damages, he's now admitting to doing all but taking the role of Apple's counsel in the jury room.


I doubt it. Jurors speak out all the time. He isn't saying that they considered any other research or that he did anything improper. Both sides and the judge knew his background and that he had patents and was involved in lawsuits in the past. He simply explained to the rest of the jury the concepts that were laid out in the instructions.

Jurors are supposed to consider the evidence presented to them. That doesn't mean checking their brains at the door.
Rating: 23 Positives

[ Read All Comments ]