4 ms·

PJ's bias is getting ridiculous now. When you read this line that the foreman "used knowledge from that experience to convince the other jurors that Samsung's

PJ's bias is getting ridiculous now. When you read this line that the foreman "used knowledge from that experience to convince the other jurors that Samsung's prior art was not valid" you are led to believe coercion occurred. When in fact there is no evidence of this at all. Likewise the foreman "played his own role as an "expert", to decide the case" makes it seem like the foreman was the one making all the decisions. I've been on two juries in the past and everyone takes the role seriously. Especially for a high profile and expensive case as this one. So are we really going to let this picture be painted that one person made the decision here ?

johsoe 14y ago
From: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3280361/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-velvin-hogan-interview http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3280361/apple-samsung-jury... "Hogan said he was one of a pair of jurors that served as the de facto technical experts of the nine-person panel." And: "Except for my family, it was the high spot of my career," Hogan said about the trial. "You might even say my life." A holder of a patent on video compression himself, he said he recognized that the case represented a "landmark decision," and that he was pleased he'd been selected "because I wanted to be satisfied from my own perspective that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."
esolyt 14y ago
He was obviously heavily influential. One of the jurors, Ilagan says: "Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art. Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."
vacri 14y ago
I don't see any hint of coercion in the article. It seems to me that you're showing bias in thinking so. The foreman is painted as using his prior experience to influence the other jurors, in a manner that he shouldn't have. He isn't painted as being a standover man.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>When in fact there is no evidence of this at all. Choice quotes by the foreman: "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there." "I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art." Excerpt from an interview: Emily Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused? Vel Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's just get that out of the way first. Emily Chang: Now when you first got into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right? Vel Hogan: Yes. Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway overwhelmingly in Apple’s favour? Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe lean the other way. Emily Chang: Why? Vel Hogan: Why? We were at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we would call an aha moment. Emily Chang: Um hmmm. Vel Hogan: And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent. Emily Chang: Really? Vel Hogan: Really. And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went patent by patent claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't valid. Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about? Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. Emily Chang: Um hmm. Vel Hogan: And that means that they're not interchangeable and that just cha..., that changed everything right there Indeed it did.
kaffiene 14y ago
You obviously haven't read the other interviews with the foreman and other members of the jury, then. There are jurors who stated that the foreman explained various issue of patent law to them - drawing on his own experience as a patent holder - and that helped them make up their minds. It sounds to me that you have an axe to grind and you haven't read the interviews that are out in the public domain.

johsoe 14y ago

From: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3280361/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-velvin-hogan-interview http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/31/3280361/apple-samsung-jury... "Hogan said he was one of a pair of jurors that served as the de facto technical experts of the nine-person panel." And: "Except for my family, it was the high spot of my career," Hogan said about the trial. "You might even say my life." A holder of a patent on video compression himself, he said he recognized that the case represented a "landmark decision," and that he was pleased he'd been selected "because I wanted to be satisfied from my own perspective that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

esolyt 14y ago

He was obviously heavily influential. One of the jurors, Ilagan says: "Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art. Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."

vacri 14y ago

I don't see any hint of coercion in the article. It seems to me that you're showing bias in thinking so. The foreman is painted as using his prior experience to influence the other jurors, in a manner that he shouldn't have. He isn't painted as being a standover man.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>When in fact there is no evidence of this at all. Choice quotes by the foreman: "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there." "I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art." Excerpt from an interview: Emily Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused? Vel Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's just get that out of the way first. Emily Chang: Now when you first got into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right? Vel Hogan: Yes. Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway overwhelmingly in Apple’s favour? Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe lean the other way. Emily Chang: Why? Vel Hogan: Why? We were at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we would call an aha moment. Emily Chang: Um hmmm. Vel Hogan: And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent. Emily Chang: Really? Vel Hogan: Really. And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went patent by patent claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't valid. Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself in, what was that about? Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah, patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. Emily Chang: Um hmm. Vel Hogan: And that means that they're not interchangeable and that just cha..., that changed everything right there Indeed it did.

kaffiene 14y ago

You obviously haven't read the other interviews with the foreman and other members of the jury, then. There are jurors who stated that the foreman explained various issue of patent law to them - drawing on his own experience as a patent holder - and that helped them make up their minds. It sounds to me that you have an axe to grind and you haven't read the interviews that are out in the public domain.