We're just gonna let this sit here. Draw your own conclusion. (The hostess seems to be a little excited about all this, too.)

That said, you'll also find this line 9:22 in: "The Android operating system, clear and of itself, was not something that infringed."

Source: Bloomberg

There are 116 comments


I wonder when Vel and his fellow juror's get their free Apple product lines. 35 secs in he admits both sides tried to buy him and the other jurors.

He fesses up it was his push that persuaded the jury to their conclusion.

In short, 1 man, someone that who himselve is a patent holder, persuaded the entire jury (who by the sounds of it, just wanted to go home, as they had made their minds up by day one).

This is going to be overturned, it's obvious to even an idiot that is was never a fair trial.

benthe1 says:

Agreed. If the jury was split going in to deliberation and then one or two guys were able to persuade the entire jury that Apple should win, Samsung definitely has a case for this to be overturned.

coolkatz321 says:

Neither of you have any idea how the legal system works, do you? Maybe the reward is reduced. Maybe Samsung wins a couple issues on appeal. But the whole thing overturned? You people are fools.

There's always that one self proclaimed genius on the internet. By saying the phrase "You people have no idea..................do you!?" You are automatically the expert and no one else can even leave the house without getting tangled in the drapes. I dare say 'coolkatz321' is the "fool".

hmmm says:

Why are they fools? Verdicts get overturned all the time on appeal.

socialillz says:

100% agree. I wonder what the avg IQ this runaway jury had

rohan611 says:

he said that he used his experience as a patent holder to inform the rest of the jury about the process. I don't see anything wrong with that. We whined and moaned because we thought this case would be decided by people naive in tech and patents. Now that we find out that someone had experience and was foreman, we want to dismiss that as bias simply because the verdict didn't go Samsung's way? I think that's ridiculous.

joebob2000 says:

If it were someone like an independent legal expert who actually knows both sides of tech patents, then sure it would be great for him to be on the jury. This jury was basically made up of one man who is very pro-patent (read: pro-plaintiff) and a bunch of people who couldn't care less. It doesn't get more biased than that. And the fact that he keeps opening his mouth to dig the hole deeper, he clearly has no idea what he's doing except thinking that he is scoring points for "the little guy" (in this case, Apple, amazingly) but really he is just nailing shut the case on the appeal.

Saneless says:

He doesn't just have experience with getting a patent, he has experience with getting a patent for something that already existed. He pretty much was just like Apple.

vinny jr says:

Having experience and knowledge is fine and sometimes very helpful but if he uses his input to change people's decisions then that is wrong and gives big reason for appeal and maybe throw the verdict out completely. By listening to this ass explain his input it is very obvious he is very proud and almost to the point of bragging to anyone who will put a mic in his face that he was the key figure in the final verdict. This will be appealed and maybe thrown out on many different reasons. These patterns that were found to violate Apple is ridiculous if you brake them down and explain them in simple terms. It is pathetic that any company can pattern round corners on a device that needs corners in some way to even exist. Just My Opinion.

vinny jr says:

Having experience and knowledge is fine and sometimes very helpful but if he uses his input to change people's decisions then that is wrong and gives big reason for appeal and maybe throw the verdict out completely. By listening to this ass explain his input it is very obvious he is very proud and almost to the point of bragging to anyone who will put a mic in his face that he was the key figure in the final verdict. This will be appealed and maybe thrown out on many different reasons. These patterns that were found to violate Apple is ridiculous if you brake them down and explain them in simple terms. It is pathetic that any company can pattern round corners on a device that needs corners in some way to even exist. Just My Opinion.

flyguydip says:

This whole thing should not have happened. Lotus vs. Borland, 15 some years ago copied exactly the menu structure of Lotus 1-2-3. Turns out you can't patent user interface design after all.

I agree it kinda sounded like that, but if you listen closely, he said "bias" and not "buy".

You are correct; he did say "bias."

ImDaBes says:

He said "bias our opinion" not "buy us"...

6tr6tr says:

He said "bias our opinion" not "buy us"

21plays says:

jurors shouldn't decide patent lawsuits

Agreed, how can a group with little to no technical background have the final vote on the progress of technological innovation.

21plays says:


rohan611 says:

i read in the cnet article that there were quite a few of the with technical backgrounds.

the foreman who is being vilified "once owned a company that went through the lengthy process of obtaining a patent"

one juror "was a project manager for AT&T"

one "has a bachelor's in mechanical engineering and worked as a systems engineer for Western Electronic and as an applications engineer for Stanford Telecom"

"Four of nine jury members have experience working for tech companies, including Intel and AT&T"

sounds to me like they have more technical experience than your average randomly selected jury.

Gator352 says:

Yeah and??? Just because they "work" or "worked" in the tech industry at some level doesn't mean they know thier nose from thier butthole. I drive a truck...in the trucking industry...a MACK to be exact, and while I know how to drive the crap out of it and do "basic" maintenance doesn't mean I know how to fix the PTO of it stops working. In fact I can't even tell you how the range shifter differs in range from 8 and 10 speeds. So all that you posted means nothing to me. Play again?

This guy is an utter disgrace. All he did was place his patents in front of apples and said...if this was my patent, could I defend it. That was his whole premise. Had nothing to do if Samsung was right...or wrong.

Now I want to shit in his mouth too.

Rob White says:

You sir have win the internets for today! Bravo! Someone holding a patent or working in technology is no more qualified or capable of deciding a case like this as somebody who has eyes & can read. Give this man a gold star.

Gator352 says:

Point was is that just because they work or worked in the tech industry doesn't make them "more" qualified than anyone else. So pointing out that they have tech backgrounds means nothing. Because yeah, a person who works for AT&T that does billing is SO much more qualified to decide patent laws....

I'll take that gold star thank you.

Jimmy_Jo#AC says:


Saneless says:

Exactly.. I don't see how a "jury of your peers" can be normal dopes when "you" are a big corporation that builds technology.

So the epic 4g with a sliding keyboard feels just like an iPhone in the hand?? This guy is a douche.

Well, kudos to the host for asking most of the questions that have been circulating in the blogosphere since last weekend.

Clearly, though, the foreman trotted out the expected responses because what else is he going to do? Admit that the jury made mistakes? No, of course he's going to say that the jury reached its decision fairly. Of course he's going to say that there was no home-ground advantage. He's not going to admit any fault in himself or the jury.

To me, however, he came across like a doddery fool enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and enjoying the power of making billion-dollar decisions by swaying a jury with his "expertise".

The whole thing was a kangaroo court.

In the end, though, I don't think it will slow down Samsung or Android. A few old phones might get banned, but so what? Samsung will continue to release new products. Some will be a hit, others won't. Apple will continue to release yearly "updates" to their limited product line and they will continue to lose market share. The whole fiasco will ultimately backfire on Apple. From what I can see, they've done a great job of making themselves the most hated company in the world.

Sooner or later, monopolies and dictatorships always fail.

ludusmaximus says:

My favorite part was at the end. He cites Blackberry and Nokia as the good examples of doing something different, and those companies being the good example. Those companies continue to lose market share rapidly. Then of course he says Motorola does things right too, does he have evidence of this? Or is he just assuming there are no internal meetings and documents saying "look more like apple". He loves sitting on his little throne making these large decisions that effect tech empires.

In conclusion, Samsung should be more like RIM

rohan611 says:

...i don't understand your argument. are you saying that doing something different would result in loss of market share or that companies should mimic apple to gain in market share? because if so, you're making Apple's argument for them.

bplewis24 says:

There is apparently a lot you don't understand.

rohan611 says:

why don't you enlighten me. or do you just want to make snarky comments?

Gator352 says:

I'll enlighten for him. The foreman mentioned companies that are and have lost market share. In fact, RIM is about to go under. So let's model after a company that can't even flush a toilet without hearing...Cha Ching!

But this isn't about what apple holds as patents but rather if these patents are valid. See, most of the patents that apple is fighting for should never have been granted due to PRIOR ART. Squared icons with rounded corners. If you knew anything, you would know that windows has been using them since windows 1.x. All Feature phones (flip style) prior to ANY apple mobile product has been using them...especially icons in a grid, row of 4. Front smooth glass with a bezel??? Are you kidding me? Rectangles with rounded corners? Give me a break.

At this point, you need to go put on your skinny jeans and go to the mall and hang out with your best friends....The Fritter Foundation for communistic supremecy.

roninksb says:

His reference to Nokia, RIM, etc. was not about their business model but a comment about the other players in the market selling smartphones and how they are able to skin the same cat without infringing on Apple's patents.

The juror is very clear that it was not about a rectangle with rounded edges, for him and the rest of the jury, it was about going out of your way to make your product as close to a competitors as humanly possible or as he said "crossing the line"/"going to far".

I agree that this debate is not really about what this jury decided but whether the patent are valid and should have been granted in the first place. However, that was not this jury task. They were asked to decide based on the evidence, the existing law and the patents as they are whether Samsung infringed them. Given the evidence, this juror came to the conclusion that Samsung did. We were not in the courtroom and did not hear or see all the evidence, so it is almost impossible to Monday morning quarterback and say they came to the wrong conclusions. I will say that based on the small portion of the evidence that was reported in the media, the notion that the jury's conclusion was unreasonable and not based on the evidence seems unreasonable and not based on the evidence.

TenshiNo says:

Personally, I found it concerning when the hostess asked him about the validity of the "rounded corners" patent and his response was "we didn't look at individual patents, but at the design as a whole". He's basically admitting right there that the jury didn't do their job.

If they believed that the "design as a whole" violated Apple's patents, but each of those patents should be invalid (or at least enough of them to matter) then the jury's decision should have been very different. By saying "we didn't look at the individual items" he is himself admitting that the jury did not do their job and this verdict should be thrown out entirely.

Even when the interviewer brought up the concern of the jurors not reading the 170+ pages of instruction, he never actually said "yes we did". His response was "look. the first thing we did was make sure that everybody understood what was going on." It really sounds like this guy is almost bragging that *he* pretty much decided the verdict.

shuura says:

"I agree that this debate is not really about what this jury decided but whether the patent are valid and should have been granted in the first place. However, that was not this jury task."

very well stated! I would be the first to admit that I do not like Apple products and do not agree with their "innovative" design patents. However that was not what this jury was asked to deliberate.

"I will say that based on the small portion of the evidence that was reported in the media, the notion that the jury's conclusion was unreasonable and not based on the evidence seems unreasonable and not based on the evidence."

I applaud you!

rohan, you're the one making snarky comments. Don't be offended if someone returns the favor. You aren't the only one who can play that game.

ludusmaximus says:

I wasn't really making an argument. I just found the foreman's advice for Samsung to be amusing.

joebob2000 says:

The point of patents is to protect UNIQUE INNOVATION. If some business (like Apple) stumbles on a technique that really catches on with consumers (simplicity, in this case) then why should a patent protect anything relating to that "innovation"? All they did was make a phone that was less complex than all the other phones (including the physical design). Presence or lack of complexity is NOT innovation, it's like saying Versace (a notable fashion company, fyi) sells black dresses and handbags, and they are popular, and for some reason they should be entitled to be the only company selling black colored goods. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

To make it simple, given Nokia's and RIM's market share right now, they are not good examples of good it right. And in fact Palm could have easily sued RIM over design rights.

The whole thing makes me sick. My Dell monitors at work look and function exactly like my Samsung monitors at home. On my truck, two of my tires are Goodyear Wranglers, the other two are Michelins. See where I'm going with this.

Macboy74 says:

Wow it's amazing the hate on this blog, imore and many others. I use both Android and iOS devices daily and like them both. Even though I do favor iOS for many reasons. Plus I've been a Mac user for 20+ years. In my opinion this case was a good thing because it forces Samsung to come up with their own designs like every other Android oem has done for the past three and half to four years that Android has been on a device. Also let's be totally honest here while Android itself was not infringing we all know where it got it core values from.

21plays says:

you're kidding, right? beat macboy

BrianBaker says:


bplewis24 says:

So, the dumbest person on this article is a Mac fanboy. There's a shocker.

TheWenger says:

There are two types of innovation and they are both very important to the evolution of technology. Creating brand new ideas, and improving on existing ideas. If it was up to Apple, the latter would not exist. It seems like the only type of innovation they want is where a group of people sit in isolation and pull stuff out of their ass without looking at any existing products. That's not realistic. The iPhone was not designed without any reference to existing products.

italia0101 says:

"Also let's be totally honest here while Android itself was not infringing we all know where it got it core values from" quote from Macboy74

Wow..... seriously ? take that stick out of your ass ,

joebob2000 says:

If the verdict stands, all that is going to happen is Apple will take up a case to against other large-screen phone maker and sue them to hell. Apple will then have even more billions of dollars it has no idea what to do with since it really isn't in the business of innovating, it is in the business of telling consumers that they want dumbed down gadgets at an inflated price. Hooray for progress! If one company stumbles into a market, why not make them a defacto monopoly because they were granted some ridiculous patents? That sounds like a great way to make sure competition thrives.

MthII says:

So your solace is in knowing Android got it's ideas from Apple? You realize that comment at the end has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of discussion? Thanks for contributing iTroll.

We all know where MAC gets it's core values from too. If you knew anything about Apple's history, you would not have shot yourself in the foot like that. Very few Apple fans maintain their credibility for more than a few sentences. The second you mention anything about Android using iOS as any sort of template, you better admit that Apple did it to Xerox to develop the GUI and the MAC.

NHLou says:

Yeah, the rhetoric on both sides can be pretty heated. I have to completely disagree with you on your last statement. In my opinion, Android has, from its inception, been uniquely Google. Open source (as opposed to closed/walled garden of iOS), much, much more cloud based (as opposed to iTunes ), customizable user interface (as opposed to an array of square icons in iOS).

I have an S3 now and Touchwiz Nature (which is actually unoffensive) and ICS show how far Android has come and how different Android has become from iOS. My phone before the S3 was the Droid Charge and I have to LAUGH to think that phone is on the list of phones that infringe Apple's patents. Aside from launching the app drawer and making the Charge look like the iPhone's homescreen, I do not see how anyone could confuse the Charge with the iPhone. In fact, if I were Apple, I would be insulted to think THAT phone would be considered to be similar to an iPhone. The Charge was not a great phone.

TenshiNo says:

Actually, your last statement is factually untrue. Android existed several years before the iPhone was released. Both have influenced each other, but most of the "core" concepts for either one came from WebOS, the old WinMo phones and the old Nokia smart phones (can't remember the name of the OS).


But to say that making a "rectangular device with rounded corners" is infringing on some kind of patent is just silly. Apple got *many* of the ideas for the iPhone from other devices. Any successful company is going to look at the market and say "what are other successful companies doing that are popular in the market, and can we emulate some of that and make it better?" That's normal business practice (and it's exactly how Apple came up with the iPhone and most of their products over the years). That's not the same thing as "trying to copy Apple". That would imply that Samsung was actively trying to mislead people into accidentally buying a Samsung phone, instead of an iPhone.

What Apple is really trying to claim here is that the average consumer is too stupid to tell the difference and are buying Samsung phones by accident when they really meant to buy an iPhone. They've tried the same argument around the world over the past year and have lost repeatedly.

talhamid says:

Really? Core value? Such as flexibility, customization and width of product range? You got to be kidding us.

lightyear420 says:

oh, good...now I know what he looks like so I can egg his house :)

kboss375 says:

I wonder if that "ah-ha" moment was a apple rep showing up at his door with a new idevice

I kid

SamOliver says:

There could actually be some truth to that, he admitted that both sides offered them bribes.

shuura says:

when was that stated?

sats.mine2k4 says:

The face of idiocracy...

Jury tampering is the crime of unduly attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial.

icemanhcj says:

All I can think about is its a good thing that the first auto maker didn't have a patent on 4 tires and a steering them wheel.

I've tried to refrain from commenting on this Apple vs Samsung suit/decision because 90% of the commentators are biased in preference of one company or another. How as a consumer who has utilized products from both companies (have been burned with no working gps on Epic 4G and imported Galaxy nexus however) I honestly feel I can be objective.

Anyone with a clear mind knew Samsung would lose in some capacity and deservingly so. I remember many Android fans expressing their distaste for the Galaxy series because of the TouchWiz interface resembling iOS too much. I looked at the Samsung internal document that I believe was over 100 pages essentially dissecting every imaginable aspect of the iPhone software stating how good it is and comparing where their software was insufficient. They depth that they went into analyzing the iPhone and using it's ideas was insane.

On top of that with their TouchWiz they stylized android in a non stock way to look more like iOS software like adding color filled squares behind icons (app draw), light effects, the shaded area behind the dock to highlight it, etc.

Now the validity of the software patent disputes are left to the legal system to handle. I know the case is far from complete completion. However is does seem Samsung early on did go far out of their way to copy the appearance of Apple's iOS software . Samsung's mobile phone hardware quickly evolved. Their software has also but took longer.

Long story short we'll see the final decisions a couple years from now. The damages will be largely dependent on whether or not the validity of the software patents stick. However in a best case scenario I believe Samsung did violate iOS's look and feel and trade dress (galaxy s 1). Too many similarities

Owner of
HTC Evo 4G (Sold)
GSM Galaxy Nexus
Nexus 7

Macbook Pro
iPhone 4S (Sold- Sprint data was way too slow. Cancelled 3 lines no etf because if contract change)
iPad 2

lightyear420 says:

sprint's 4g data is NOT too slow....maybe your iphone 4s was the problem...my nexus s 4g regularly gets 3MByte/s and if I'm lucky I get 3.5Mbyte/s. I get so tired of hearing this. Sprint's data is far faster than any competitor, IMO, and good luck finding another company that offers unlimited data for the prices they charge.

Sprint's data is not far faster than any other competitor. Verizon and AT&T LTE is way faster than Sprint's Wimax. As is T-mobile's HSPA+. Wimax coverage was terrible and was completely useless if I was moving or in any kind of structure. In New York City during times people were actually awake streaming forget about it. I couldnt even use my google voice app it took too long to refresh. The Sprint forums are full of people complaining as well. Their 3G network was and still is in most populated places slow as hell.

BTW I'm using a straight talk sim now. Use wifi when in range, tether when I feel like it (30$ on sprint). I used 3.09 GBs of data this month so far and it cost me $45 dollars

Wicell says:

You must be in a slow area. I get 2.15 Mbps down on 3G alone, when I had my Epic Touch I got 9.6-12 Mbps down on WiMax, but 3.5 on WiMax is not bragging rights haha, it kinda confirms that Sprint sucks in some markets.

Waiting for that LTE Flip on my Sprint Galaxy S III!

icemanhcj says:

Sorry about the 'them" still haven't got use to SwiftKey

Feech says:

When he said prior art and the processor not being the same the interviewer should have said hold on wtf fuck are you talking about.. This is why a tech pereon needs to interview this nut job.. Why would he even mention if the Android OS infringed? That wasn't a question he was ever asked in this case

Of course if the patent was his he would be pissed and rule against the alleged infringer. How the hell did Samsung let a patent holder on the jury. Its funny too he keeps saying this country..then dude says that they didn't look at any singular aspect.. You have to do that..

lightyear420 says:

it sounds to me like this idiot made up his own mind, then swayed the rest of the jurors to agree with him.

also, he says his "ah-ha moment" was when he realized apple's software can't run on the same cpu androids use....then how in the flying hell can you claim infringement??? That's like saying "you stole my mac OS install disk because you wanted to install it on your windows machine!!!" He knows damn well no standard arm arch will run ios proprietary files, but he still claims infringement??? And then because he's the one with the "tech background" he persuades the jury to agree with them because as he says himself "sometimes they were confused and I had to help them understand the similarities between the two"....so he planted the seed, then led them to agree with them because "he knows what he's talking about"

this guy is a giant fucking retard!!! They should have gone web crawling and found a bunch of devs to sit on the jury...then we'd have really seen the truth, instead of a bunch of people who, when you turn the phone on say "now how do I make a phone call with this thing?"

dlcpa says:

I would have liked the interviewer to have asked more questions on the actual infringements because I still don't know what they are and how they were stolen. I have a problem with prior art, as Samsung wrote, that you shouldn't be able to get an exclusive patent on rectangles with beveled edges.

I think once you go in a certain direction in a product line, there are things that will be similar and generic. Did Samsung have to make a round phone that pops out of your hand? As far as the total look and feel, Apple didn't invent touch screens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen ). They didn't invent the icon system, Xerox did. Pinch and unpinch or double tappings are natural progressions that every company would come to eventually and perhaps other applications before cell phones incorporated them, so how could Apple own it? Would three taps be different than 2 taps. Should the stretching of the screen involve elbows instead of fingers? I think the hardware to make that happen and the software that goes with it should be patentable but not the process and perhaps that patent is long expired.

As far as the jury, it's not just Nationalism. Apple is a big part of the community from which the jurors live and shop. The kind of exclusivity they want to give Apple makes Apple worth more and allows them to hire more and create new products and indirectly make the area more valuable and up go property values.

I have problems Apple's desire to own something that was already happening before it used it and the natural interface with generic body and appendage movement. I don't see where prior art comes in. If so, the first rectangular cell phone that fit in one's hand has a claim of right against Apple and all the rest.

hmmm says:

Samsung is liking this I am sure. The more they talk the more chance there is Samsung will find legitimate reasons to appeal.

toukale says:

It's funny reading all those anti-apple comments. For all the hate towards apple no one seem to realize all the best modern mobile os's have apple at their core. WebOS, the geeks love it, they refuse to let it die guess who was the main man behind it? John Robinstein (former apple exec.). Android, everyone on this site thinks it's gods gift to us started by Andy Rubin a former apple engineer who actually coded for some of the early works of the iphone. It was proven that he got his android inspiration from his time working at apple. Now, the iphone in 2007 changed the landscape of the current smartphone from a stale to an enjoyable device. For all the innovation that is suppose to be taken place on the android platform I have not seen anything that is different from what the iphone fundamentally introduced in 2007, we are still going down the same path set by apple with the iphone from 2007. What is currently going on now is apple takes a little longer to implement some of the updates because of the nature of how they do business, which is one os release per calendar year with bug fixes and security patches. Google on the other hand have been on a much faster pace but everything remains the same since the iphone introduction in 2007.

TazUk says:

So people only left Apple to go to work at other companies and help develop competing products, no one left Palm, Nokia, Microsoft etc. to go work at Apple and take ideas they picked up at their previous jobs with them? Engineers move from one tech company to another, just as they do in every other line of work.

I could argue that there's nothing the original iPhone could do that couldn't already be done on PalmOS or Windows Mobile devices.

There's no doubting Apple popularized smartphones but the real innovation was done at the beginning before they were in the market.

toukale says:

I never said that, I just wanted to point out that it is no coincidence that the other best mobile os's in the market (although HP screwed WebOs) were spearheaded by former apple employees. Right now everyone in silicon valley are hiring former apple employees like there is no tomorrow, there is a reason for that. Facebook, amazon you name it are paying top dollars for former apple employees in hopes those employees will somehow be able to replicate the apple culture within their organizations.

Gator352 says:

PSSSSST. Take a look at this. Read it. Live it. Understand it.


This came out BEFORE the iphone. So who copied who and who innovated first. Damn sure wasn't apple.

toukale says:

People love to bring the LG Prada up because they have nothing to fall back on. We learned from the trial that apple had design patents applications on that since 2005, where is LG patent? Court documents again showed apple started researching since early 2000. You think LG would not be the first one to file a suit if they had a case. Please, next argument. Whether you like it or not apple created the modern smartphone that are in use today, that can't be denied so grow up and deal with it.

Gator352 says:

Well it's obvious if LG had a working unit BEFORE apple, that one could conclude that it was constructed/fabricated and in use BEFORE apple. Who knows why LG hasn't thrown a lawsuit. I don't know. Do you?? I think not. So until you know, shut up. But it's a proven fact that the prada was infact....before your beloved fruit.

TenshiNo says:

Andy Rubin *did* work at Apple as a low-level engineer, but to say "It was proven that he got his android inspiration from his time working at apple" I think needs a little factual citation, considering Rubin left Apple a good 15 *years* before the iPhone was released. Anything he might have seen there would have been a framework concept at best. And, since both operating systems are based on Linux, it's not even like either one was really built completely from scratch, so I question how much of a "concept" he could have even been privy to 15 *years* in advance of the final product.

I'm a software engineer for a living. I've worked at several different places, doing development for both internal and external projects. Projects don't general run that long. For a project like iOS, it probably got started as something resembling what we knew as iPhoneOS 1 about 3-5 years before the release of the iPhone.

pjs_boston says:

My God! What a joke!

I've never read more whiny girl posts in my life!

We want Android, therefore Samsung didn't infringe Apple's patents! No wait, the patents are invalid because we don't like them! There verdict isn't fair! The jury was bought!

Listen kids. Samsung is sleazy. Samsung copied Apple's products in violation of numerous patents. Apple slammed them for it. Legally. Fair and square.

Grow up. Get a life. Learn to eat your vegetables.

dukeblue91 says:

This 100%.
There was never any doubt that Samsung infringed on Apples stuff.
Even Google said this much then and now.
You can whine all you want to and think what you want to the facts remain the same and I think the Jury did a great job.

And Samsung has proven that they can go on their own mostly with the new SG3 even though I still think they are skirting right on the edge.

Cappurnikus says:

I love how anyone that doesn't agree with you is clearly a child.

Gator352 says:

Wow, your comment was so adult like. I want to be just like you when I grow up.


Blow me.

Tom S. says:

Read this article:


Specifically, this link to Groklaw.


Seven hundred questions and over 100 pages of jury instructions (which, they admit, were ignored) in 3 days. I am impressed. What savants.

"Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

Ok. We SKIPPED the prior art issue? What? What a joke. It was bogging us down. God forbid justice and a fair trial bog anyone down.

Gator352 says:


pseudoelf says:

On a completely different note.. Flash required to view video¿?¿? I was promised that flash was dead, what the.... I had to change browsers to watch....... Androidcentral fail.

dgwood12 says:

I love how an android Site, someone who you think would be a advocate for HTML5 is still using flash for videos. Wtf guys? Jelly bean no likey.

Wmorrison01 says:

Video came from Bloomberg...AC didn't recode the video simply so it works in HTML5. It's not AC's fault that the rest of the internet hasn't adopted new standards.

hmmm says:

It is 100% their fault for reposting a video that doesn't work with Android which is the main content of this website. AC is very hypocritical when it comes to Flash, you can see it in every article they write about it. It takes minutes to convert a shitty video for posting so that it can actually be watched from a current Android device.

Synycalwon says:

The price you pay for being on the cutting edge! ;D It still works great on my Gingerbread device! :P

Seriously, could there be copyright issues in converting a video from another party (in this case Bloomberg)? Also, I thought you could side load Flash anyway if need be?

pahern says:

Regarding the 460 patent and prior art: "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa, and that means they're not interchangeable."

I thought this guy had tech knowledge? Based on this reasoning there can never be any prior art if it doesn't exist within the same OS as the supposed infringing item. All you have to do to avoid prior art claims is build it for a different OS.

Cappurnikus says:

That's first thing I thought. So... the patents are valid because all prior art was on a different OS? Um... Android, iOS... uh...

rkirmeier says:

I love my Samsung S3 and you couldn't force me to use an iPhone but Samsung was clearly very guilty on many of their older phones as far as trade dress goes... On the other hand there are some patents that clearly have prior art and need to be invalidated...

roninksb says:

I did want to make a comment about the vitriol being directed at this juror.

I strongly believe in the American jury system. I believe that a jury of ordinary men and women hearing a dispute is not only reasonable but quite possibly the best idea that anyone has ever had, possibly beating out the wheel and fire.

Here is a guy with no stake in the outcome asked to take a huge amount of time out his life to hear this dispute and he did what he was supposed to do, he took it seriously and poured himself into and did the best he could. He clearly thought it was important, he clearly thought that he had to consider the evidence and follow the law. Reasonable people can and will differ but the personal attacks because you do not agree with the jury's conclusions or his reasoning is just plain wrong. Attack his reasoning, attack his process but there is no need to attack him. In fact, if anything, he (they) deserves our thanks.

On a related note, I believe there may be some basis to argue for a mistrial mistrial from this interview but it is pretty slim. The slim possibility comes from the use of their external expertise (and not the evidence) to decide the amount to award damages.

Cappurnikus says:

I'm no expert on the matter but it seems to me the mistrial would stem from the unwillingness to look at prior art because "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa, and that means they're not interchangeable". I love the jury system as well but I don't understand how a group of people that don't fully understand these devices can make a sound decision.

Also "a guy with no stake" said that both Apple and Samsung approached him with offers. If he accepted either offer, it would never be spoken of and he definitely would have a stake in the outcome. The offer very well could have been his "ah ha" moment.

I'm not saying he took an offer, I'm just saying it was on the table and that you wouldn't know if he took an offer.

roninksb says:

The decision by a juror or any entire jury to decide what weight to give any bit of evidence is not grounds for a mistrial. In fact, that is a large part of the job. This particular jury decided that a distinguishable characteristic for "prior art" was that the other systems that had similar function could not do it like the iPhone does it. That is one of the arguments made by Apple and the jury found it persuasive.

Perhaps, you are mistaking mistrial for reversal. A judge or appellate court could overturn the jury verdict if it finds that the verdict is not supported by the law but that is not the same as a mistrial. Samsung will surely make a number of post verdict motions including to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the credible evidence, etc.

He did not say that Apple or Samsung approached him with offers. He said that they were inundated "with people trying to bias our opinions on both sides". That is the very nature of a trial and zealous advocacy, that is, the typical trial. He did not say "people trying to buy our opinions on both sides". If they had actually approached him or any of the jurors that would be jury tampering and illegal. I might add that if it occurred with the knowledge of the attorneys it would be grounds for disbarment. In other words, a BFD.

roninksb says:

double post

ads says:

Most of us are Android fans and don't like this, or maybe don't like how software patents work. I too, early in his interview, thought, one guy steered this, but as I listened on, I think this guy did a heck of a job. If you've been on a jury, it isn't usually hard to end up with a foreman like this, good or bad; I know, because I've been that guy, and yes, I'm an engineer. I don't feel the need to be the leader, but if nobody else steps up, I abhor leaderless group exercises.

But my main point here is, almost every expert said Sammy had little chance of not getting bloody here, and this jury's job was to uphold the law, based on the evidence, NOT decide that software patent law is hosed up or that Apple should have been caught stealing the same way they accuse Sammy countless times in the past, which I ABSOLUTELY believe to be the case. Again, job was to uphold the law based on evidence, not fanboi-ism for either party.
When this guy spoke of the Goog/Sammy meetings in Korea - prior knowledge of where the line was that shouldn't be crosses, and decided to NOT tell the design team - my point of view shifted. And don't lose sight that neither Apple or the jury went after Android, OR even all of Sammy's devices, only some that, apparently - I've not done my own comparison - break the look and feel rules.

So, Sammy gets a few $bill in penalties after the judge adds willfulness, probably nothing more than one bad quarter and a less wildly profitable year. And OH, all the devices in question are over a few months old - read - dead technology - doorstops in another 6 months. I think they'll survive ;-0


Cappurnikus says:

I thought the jury had to determine if the patents were subject to prior art? That is evidence that this guy made clear that he didn't understand "The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art" and skipped over because it was bogging him down. Am I not understanding this clearly?

ads says:

I'd almost have to read the blow by blow transcript to know if I follow what he said there correctly. It could be he misunderstood something, but, being an engineer with a patent, not that likely, rather, I expect he referred to something they were told specifically which sounded weird - out of context in this interview.
I too question if there wasn't prior art, but a few things: 1. I wasn't there to see and hear all the jury did. 2. Not clear to me how specifically this stuff gets interpreted by patent law or courts - if it is wide, or extremely narrow. 3. Sammy was apparently unable to make the case for prior art. That is the upshot here; one would have thought they could, but the burden was on them to do that and they failed.


monkey28rb says:

I'm sorry but anyone who does not see that Samsung deliberately copied Apple is a fool. I know everyone on here is biased toward Android, but it is clear, even google agreed.

Gator352 says:

I'm sorry but anyone who does not see that apple deliberately copied LG is a fool. I know everyone here is biased against apple, but it's clear.....


solarus says:

I personally feel Samsung strayed way to close to ripping Apple's look and feel. Although some of the patents are questionable at best imo - ex. I don't think a grid layout of icons is anywhere close to being patentable. But that been said when all the patents are taken together the overall look of the Galaxy was too close for comfort. That alas doesn't mean something is fishy about the final decision. This article gives a pretty good view point from the legal perspective, albeit it seems a little biased to me, but it does make some interesting points.


SamTime says:

Did he just reference three floundering companies??? Lol big time fail.

Hand_O_Death says:

There job was to see if patents were violated. The way patents work here, they probably were. I am more against some of these patents being issued in the first place. Especially to companies that did not originate the product.

6tr6tr says:

The fact that they refused to read the jury instructions (and then broke a number of the rules including making the fine punitive which is explicitly NOT allowed) and ignored prior art because it was "bogging them down," should invalidate the ruling. But that's not going to happen. Those patents are clearly invalid but it's a VERY rare occurrence when a patent is invalidated.

zchoate says:

how much is apple paying the jury?

curl2k1 says:

I think we all can agree that Samsung should have lost on most of the trade dress claims. The software patents and some of the others, not so much.

As for the jury... After watching this interview, it's pretty clear that they made up their minds up front that Apple won, and the formality was to decide by how much. The "ah-ha" moment he says he had about the prior art not working on the current processors is a wash.

I can't help but feel like this guy used his background as pedigree to convince the other jurors of what he thought the verdict should be. Which to me sounds as if he thought to himself, "If I were in apple's shoes, I'd want my patents protected too."

bah... let me quit while I'm ahead... :-/

Versed says:

This guy is a feminine hygiene applicator tube.

Gator352 says:

And it looks to be vintage too!

sk8trix says:

I think that regardless of how much money samsung has lost they are still going to make bundles of money this holyday season,the proposed banned devices are older phone,and while theyre still being sold by carriers the new wave of samsungs are out already and they dont infringe on any patents yet so its not all that bad.Apple is trying very hard to sue samsung because even though the iphone 5 might be an awesome device they see the end of the line coming near.....you cant depend on solely on device and some nice computers to sustain your company for too long while android is supported by many manufacturers and samsung so far is on top.I think it will just push them to inovate faster and be even more original when the next year comes and the new samsung smartphones are revealed.

solarus says:

Got to agree, other than the fine this is not going to have much of an impact for Samsung going forward - they'll no doubt have to tweak their UI but that's a good thing - hopefully they'll follow HTC's example and reduce the overhead a little.

One thing to remember about Apple though, they don't make their money off one device and nice computers. Sure they make money off hardware, but Apple is really in the hardware design and media content distribution business. And I have to admit their business model is great - lock people into a walled garden ecosystem where its extremely inconvenient to get content from anywhere but Apple and then take 30% of every piece of content sold.

jnnyr says:

Like some of you have posted this jury clearly had an agenda and was biased. However, no one has touched on the validation of this fact. This same case was made in 7 different countries in 7 different courts (If I recall correctly) and in every single case Apple's suit was thrown out.

What was the difference? No jury in those systems. Only a Judge who knows his ass from his elbow and could clearly and easily see the lack of merit. Apple has long ago left the technology game as it's OS has become stagnant and decided there's more money to be made in obtaining patents upon patents and suing. So far the strategy is succeeding if this case is upheld. Lord knows their market share is dwindling faster each day to Android.

And how ironic is it that Apple of all companies is crying foul over copying. Really? Half of the features they now claim to be new and shiny have been done before.

milesmcever says:

Trying to decide how I feel about this... just because I do my taxes every year and have helped others does that make me an expert. Also I've done jury duty many times nothing this big so not trying to touch that side but normally I would think this guy would have been removed for having patents or having dealt with them. Where I'm coming from on that two cases I was on dealt with trust funds and the other insurance claims and in the first if you had a trust fund, dealings with or worked for a bank it was considered conflict of interest and got dismissed. Same concept with the insurance case I was20 at the time and it was about life insurance which I didn't have then so it was a young jury. I still think these cases need to be at our patent system and maybesome validity on the patents bbefore they waste peoples time ruling on them.

withtlc says:

Instead of taking sides with regard to two technological companies, try to look at a different business analogy and you will understand how the jury came to their decision. If Coke did research for a year, trying to come out with the best tasting soda, going all over the world getting peoples opinions, and tried about 1000 different mixtures before coming up with a great product... which upon release is taken to by the public in droves... and 7up company said - gee wiz... get a hold of that soda and analyze it... and make something like it... and then bottled it in a very similarly shaped bottle with lettering so close to that of the coke product that people needed to really stare at the bottles to notice a difference... would you say that Coke should not be allowed to profit from the research it did? From the final chemical mixture it came up with, from the new bottle design it came up with to differentiate its new soda from the other sodas being sold... ? Based upon the general consensus of most of the people writing this blog - 7up should have every right to not lose market share, by copying as best it can, the final product and packaging.. A bottle is a bottle you would say - you can't patent a bottle, and what is soda but a mixture of sugar, carmel, and some other additives... but what sells that soda is the overall experience of that soda. Samsung willfully copied the experience so to not lose market share - and figured by the time the case came to trial, the products originally listed in the suit would being phased out... It was a great gamble... 1 Billion dollar penalty, for the majority share of the cell phone business.. Nokia and Blackberry probably wish they had as much guts. The patent system is broken because the time it takes to protect innovativeness... - it has become a business decision as to utilize the float time it takes to defend ones research, in deciding whether to copy a competitors product.

milesmcever says:

While I agree with you I still have the question as to how apple got some of their patents thru so quickly while others like googles notification bar are still pending from 2009. Take any wrong doing out if this and you ask if Apple either has it down pat or Google is doing something wrong.

talhamid says:

It is all beyond absurd. I urge my fellow Android users to check out my blog entry:


Guru42 says:

As a technology professional, who spends many hours each weekend reading technology newsletters and blogs, I am still sorting out a multitude of questions I have on the Apple versus Samsung fight.

I have been reading through all this, very fascinating discussion. The discussion here is one of the best I have read so far. I am still trying to come to terms with the comment, "The Android operating system, clear and of itself, was not something that infringed." Why?

Set aside for the sake of this argument the sentiment that Samsung is sleazy. Strictly looking at the technology, what the heck is Samsung doing, that HTC or Motorola is not, that makes it the bad guy in all of this?

highbar81 says:

It all comes down to "trade dress". Samsung modified the icons in the OS to look too much like the iOS icons, or that's Apples theory. That has nothing to do with the base Android operating system. It also has to do with the fact that Apple holds a patent on the "shape" of the phone, which to many people is a joke, and they say Samsung's phones look too much like that shape. That is what they are doing that HTC and Motorola don't do.

Guru42 says:

The jury decided that that Samsung violated patent D'305, which covers a grid of rounded square icons against a black background. Seriously? No one else can use a grid of rounded square icons against a black background on a smartphone?