Apple's Beats brand in April unveiled the Powerbeats Pro, a redesigned wire-free version of its popular fitness-oriented Powerbeats earbuds.
Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict
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.