3 ms·

This article is a continuation of many the site has posted. In previous articles they have gone on in detail about how the foreman ignored jury instructions. He

by lnanek2 14y ago

This article is a continuation of many the site has posted. In previous articles they have gone on in detail about how the foreman ignored jury instructions. He invalidated prior art because the code wouldn't run on the iPhone processor, for example, and he said they calculated damages to send a message to Samsung and the industry as a whole. These things are both directly counter to the jury instructions, which do not require prior art to be binary compatible and state damages should only basically fix the amount of money lost by the other company, not be extreme to make a point. Here's one of the articles: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120828225612963 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120828225612... If the guy had that previous experience, but he followed the instructions, I don't think people would have complained. But instead he ignored instructions and took things into his own hands based on his incorrect perceptions of patent law he formed from his past experiences.

twoodfin 14y ago
I don't want to re-litigate all this, but her argument puts an awful lot of weight on 15 seconds of the foreman speaking extemporaneously during a TV interview. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that when he said "processor" he was referring to the two devices broadly, and that he reads the '381 patent as applying to a different kind of system than the DiamondTouch. Even she specifies that the Apple patent covered "portable multifunction devices", which the DiamondTouch manifestly is not. Again, I'm not arguing that the prior art is or isn't sufficient to throw out the patent. I'm only arguing that it's not a slam dunk that this juror "took things into his own hands" based on a few vague comments about their deliberations.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  I don't think anyone here is ready to tar and feather the jury foreman here - but the fact that the interviews were given, and based on interviews with other jurors, it certainly seems suspicious. And considering $1bn is on the line, I don't think it's too much to ask that we investigate this.

by lnanek2 14y ago

twoodfin 14y ago

I don't want to re-litigate all this, but her argument puts an awful lot of weight on 15 seconds of the foreman speaking extemporaneously during a TV interview. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that when he said "processor" he was referring to the two devices broadly, and that he reads the '381 patent as applying to a different kind of system than the DiamondTouch. Even she specifies that the Apple patent covered "portable multifunction devices", which the DiamondTouch manifestly is not. Again, I'm not arguing that the prior art is or isn't sufficient to throw out the patent. I'm only arguing that it's not a slam dunk that this juror "took things into his own hands" based on a few vague comments about their deliberations.

potatolicious 14y ago
I don't think anyone here is ready to tar and feather the jury foreman here - but the fact that the interviews were given, and based on interviews with other jurors, it certainly seems suspicious. And considering $1bn is on the line, I don't think it's too much to ask that we investigate this.