Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.
Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.
In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.
In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.
Apple is not expected to release a standard iPhone 18 model this year, according to a growing number of reports that suggest the company is planning a significant change to its long-standing annual iPhone launch cycle.
Despite the immense success of the iPhone 17 in 2025, the iPhone 18 is not expected to arrive until the spring of 2027, leaving the iPhone 17 in the lineup as the latest...
Language learning app Duolingo has apparently been using the iPhone's Live Activity feature to display ads on the Lock Screen and the Dynamic Island, which violates Apple's design guidelines.
According to multiple reports on Reddit, the Duolingo app has been displaying an ad for a "Super offer," which is Duolingo's paid subscription option.
Apple's guidelines for Live Activity state that...
The company behind the BlackBerry-like Clicks Keyboard accessory for the iPhone today unveiled a new Android 16 smartphone called the Clicks Communicator.
The purpose-built device is designed to be used as a second phone alongside your iPhone, with the intended focus being communication over content consumption. It runs a custom Android launcher that offers a curated selection of messaging...
Apple plans to introduce a 12.9-inch MacBook in spring 2026, according to TrendForce.
In a press release this week, the Taiwanese research firm said this MacBook will be aimed at the entry-level to mid-range market, with "competitive pricing."
TrendForce did not share any further details about this MacBook, but the information that it shared lines up with several rumors about a more...
Apple is planning to release a low-cost MacBook in 2026, which will apparently compete with more affordable Chromebooks and Windows PCs. Apple's most affordable Mac right now is the $999 MacBook Air, and the upcoming low-cost MacBook is expected to be cheaper. Here's what we know about the low-cost MacBook so far.
Size
Rumors suggest the low-cost MacBook will have a display that's around 13 ...
Apple today announced a number of updates to Apple Fitness+ and activity with the Apple Watch.
The key announcements include:
New Year limited-edition award: Users can win the award by closing all three Activity Rings for seven days in a row in January.
"Quit Quitting" Strava challenge: Available in Strava throughout January, users who log 12 workouts anytime in the month will win an ...
Govee today introduced three new HomeKit-compatible lighting products, including the Govee Floor Lamp 3, the Govee Ceiling Light Ultra, and the Govee Sky Ceiling Light.
The Govee Floor Lamp 3 is the successor to the Floor Lamp 2, and it offers Matter integration with the option to connect to HomeKit. The Floor Lamp 3 offers an upgraded LuminBlend+ lighting system that can reproduce 281...
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.
I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.
Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...
I think they made the right decision. Samsung clearly copied and infringed on Apple's patents, Apple told them to stop many times, offered to licence it to them but Samsung still refused to cooperate so Apple sued them. Serves them right.
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.
I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.
Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
What this jury verdict says is that Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property and that Samsung is guilty of lifting Apple's innovation despite the fact that Apple had offered Samsung several times to license their property.
I will also point out that Samsung is the worldwide leader in unit marketshare of smartphones.
Samsung dominates the market by selling lots of devices that -- according to this jury -- are crammed full of Apple intellectual property. Apple has a long way to go to reach what would be a monopoly.
You should understand that the jury members are interpreting US patent law and aren't employees of Apple Inc. nor Samsung. As a matter of fact, any Apple or Samsung employees would have been weeded out during the jury selection process.
The jury is not telling anyone to stop innovating. They are telling Samsung to do their own innovation and not to steal stuff from Apple and saying it is theirs. Due to the lack of congressional foresight, current patent law has no actionable provision for "finders keepers, losers weepers" or "share your toys with the other kids in the sandbox."
Now, if you think the US patent system is broken, that's an entirely different (and arguably valid) discussion, however the jury is instructed to base their verdict on existing and active law.
These laws weren't written to favor one specific company (like Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Wonderbra, whoever).
You have understood nothing about this entire legal action.
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:
Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
Uh, the jury needs to consider all the evidence presented at trial. It's a little strange that you feel you can redefine the rules of evidence used at trial in an internet forum.
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:
Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
And they would definitely sue Pepsi if they copied.
----------
This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.
I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.
Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.
Samsung is the one that needs to learn to play well with others - this has been going on for years and years with them.
