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 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.