or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict

post #1 of 196
Thread Starter 
A day after the Apple v. Samsung trial concluded with a resounding Apple win, jurors shared their story of how the decision was made to slap Samsung with over $1 billion in damages owed for copying the iPhone maker's patents.

In a pair of reports from Reuters and CNET, jury foreman Velvin Hogan and juror Manuel Ilagan described what went on behind closed doors as the nine-member group deliberated the landmark verdict.

Apple on Friday was awarded nearly $1.05 billion after Samsung was found to have infringed on six of seven asserted patents, while the Korean company won none of their counterclaims.

The one-sided victory for Apple came quickly, as the jury took only 21 hours, or less than three working days, to come to a consensus after counsel spent three weeks presenting arguments and testimony.

Ilagan told CNET the jury was convinced of Samsung's guilt after only one day of deliberations, noting that the seemingly fast verdict was carefully decided after weighing evidence presented by both parties. Altogether, the group had to decide on over 700 questions related to patents and patent rights.

"We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough.We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."

Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan said.

Also factors were a number of internal emails Samsung executives sent to each other regarding features seen on the iPhone, as well as a demonstrative exhibits showing the evolution of the Korean company's phones before and after Apple's handset was released.

Samsung Phones


As for Samsung's claims of infringement, Ilagan said the company lost the jury when it tried to leverage two UMTS wireless patents against Apple, one of which involved the communications chip in the iPhone and iPad. Apple refuted this specific claim and pointed to a Samsung licensing deal with Intel, the maker of the iDevice chips. The agreement stated that Samsung was not allowed to sue any company to which Intel sold that particular component, a licensing safeguard known as patent exhaustion.

In going through deliberations, jurors had trouble with prior art Samsung counsel presented to counter Apple's patent claims, including the '381 "rubber-banding" and '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patents. Ilagan noted that Hogan, who had been part of a jury three times before, was familiar with patents as he owned a number himself, making the foreman an invaluable asset in navigating the murky waters of invention claims.

After it was decided that Samsung was guilty of infringement, Ilagan said it was easy to determine which handsets were in violation.

"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same," Ilagan said. "Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."

Verdict
Sample of the jury's completed 20-page verdict form. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


After the infringing products were tallied, damages were assigned based on numbers the jury thought was fair but substantial. Apple claimed Samsung enjoyed 35.5 percent profit margins from selling the infringing products, but the jury disagreed and offered a calculation more in line with the Korean company's claim of 12 percent margins.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

When asked if the jury knew just how significant the Apple v. Samsung trial was, Ilagan said, "I realized that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones, but I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs." He went on to say, "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."
post #2 of 196

Well, obviously. Everyone knew Samsung was guilty since day 1.

 

EDIT: Or they are on sided Fantards who are ignorant to the fact that everything Samsung does is to copy Apple. That is the reason why they are so...well...successful. They copy Apple.

 

EDIT: And you are smoking.gif weed if you don't agree.


Edited by logandigges - 8/25/12 at 5:31pm

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #3 of 196
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said.

 

Be on more tech juries, please.


…Ilagan said, "I realized that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones, but I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs."

 

"…he said, while stifling laughter and rolling his eyes."

post #4 of 196

We did too, jurors, we did too. 

post #5 of 196

Well done, jurors. Well done. Common sense prevailed. If only the trolls on this site were equally inclined. lol.gif

 

And now we see clearly how distorted the worldview is of the Apple-haters and the rectanglez trolls. They are nowhere near mainstream in their views: their tech/gadget/specs elitism does not represent the view of the average person.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #6 of 196
Given the certitude in the jury, it's interesting that Judge Koh, on the other hand, was framing this as an equally risky proposition for both sides, in urging Apple to settle.

Either she was clueless in reading the jury, or...... (hypothesis?)

Anyway, I am predicting that she does not treble damages nor go with the injunction. I hope I am wrong.
post #7 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well done, jurors. Well done. Common sense prevailed. If only the trolls on this site were equally inclined. lol.gif

 

Normally theyre on here every thread voicing their wisdom. Been a bit quiet since the verdict. I stumbled across an Android forums linked from a news article on the topic, they're all calling for patent reform now Androids ability to clone iOS has been tarnished
post #8 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Given the certitude in the jury, it's interesting that Judge Koh, on the other hand, was framing this as an equally risky proposition for both sides, in urging Apple to settle.
Either she was clueless in reading the jury, or...... (hypothesis?)
Anyway, I am predicting that she does not treble damages nor go with the injunction. I hope I am wrong.

 

She didn't want the matter going to appeal, because then she'd be under a microscope. So she pushed for a settlement. That *was* one of the theories anyway. 

 

It's gratifying, though, that this went to a jury. 

post #9 of 196

anyone with two eyes could tell you Same-sung was guilty after one second.

post #10 of 196
He went on to say, "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."

I think this is an important point that the jury (rightly, IMHO) picked up on early- there are other ways to design a smart phone. Blackberry and Nokia phones didn't look like iPhones, so why did Samsung decide theirs -had- to not only look like them, but try to duplicate the iOS user experience? Granted, when a company as innovative as Apple comes up with something that becomes an obvious standard, that doesn't mean it's not protected by patents. 

post #11 of 196

wow! a jury that really understood what the F was going on. who woulda thunk?

 

this is a shot hear around the world.

post #12 of 196

Another Extremely Obvious Observation,...from the outside    ...not from this Jury's vantaged perception.

 

If Samsung never COPIED,
they would be in the EXACT SAME BOAT as RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, and now SAMSUNG, are today.

 

In other words, it's OBVIOUS that Samsung is having sales success

Unlike, RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, ...and others.

 

Their the only company with some level of success

BUT

 

that success was SOLELY dependent on their COPYING APPLE.

post #13 of 196
Quote:
Apple refuted this specific claim and pointed to a Samsung licensing deal with Intel, the maker of the iDevice chips. The agreement stated that Samsung was not allowed to sue any company to which Intel sold that particular component,

Didn't Samsung's lawyers have jury consultants? Most people can be willing to forgive a slight whiff of greed if the company is otherwise has a good reputation. But nobody likes companies where it's beyond doubt that they're being greedy bastards. So why did Samsung bring this up when it should have been obvious to them that Intel's contract is an obvious defense, and that would prove that Samsung is trying to double-dip against Apple? That's like giving any jury that isn't paid Samsung shills a reason to hate them.
Edited by EWTHeckman - 8/25/12 at 9:23pm
post #14 of 196

Boy what a wonderful week it's been for Apple. I've bent too busy to read / post, but loved hearing about it in the news.

 

I'm in the UK & don't own any Apple shares :-( , but also glad I don't own any Samsung or Google :-) 

 

Great to hear the jurors knew, almost from the start, what most of us all believed too.

 

Might upgrade from my 13" MBP to a 15" MBP to celebrate shortly.

post #15 of 196

Was anyone troubled/concerned that Apple was only awarded a little over $1b for the whole slew of infringements (which also created a technological revolution), while NTP was awarded over half that ($612.5m) for just their email patent(s) from Research in Motion?

 

Or is this just apples and samsungs...

post #16 of 196

What’s amazing to remember is that those awful pre-Apple phone designs were exactly the kind of thing we all drooled over up until 2007!

post #17 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm View Post

 

Normally theyre on here every thread voicing their wisdom. Been a bit quiet since the verdict. I stumbled across an Android forums linked from a news article on the topic, they're all calling for patent reform now Androids ability to clone iOS has been tarnished

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks for looking into it. Basically, the Fandroids' position is that patents are evil and that companies should be able to copy with impunity so there is more "choice". But that's not how patent laws work: patent laws protect inventors and innovation, and I'm glad the jury stood up for that.

 

The "Apple didn't invent anything" and "Everyone copies everyone" trolling was done to throw up a smokescreen to obscure their real agenda: to justify patent infringement necessary to copy the iPhone and iPad experience. How petty.

 

It's also clear that Google is totally a supporter of the stealing-from-Apple-is-our-moral-right ideology when they tried to argue that whole "de facto essential standards" bullshit to Congress with circular logic.

 

Yup, the jury system worked. And they protected patents. A victory for those who innovate. A defeat for those who copy. And now they're going to try to undermine the patent system to make it easier to copy.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

What’s amazing to remember is that those awful pre-Apple phone designs were exactly the kind of thing we all drooled over up until 2007!

I hated every cell phone I had until the iPhone.

post #19 of 196
is that why they found the Nexus S to infringe on a patent it couldn't have infringed upon?
post #20 of 196
There were two interesting things about the verdict:

1. They found Samsung guilty on a bunch of the phones, but not the Tab - even though the Tab looks closer to the iPad than any of their phones do to the iPhone. Clearly, they accepted some of the prior art arguments even though a concept should not be accepted as prior art.

2. They accepted Samsung's arguments on damages. Apple asked for Samsung to be penalized for the gross margin generated by their products. Samsung said that they should only be penalized by the net. But since the overhead costs are largely fixed, Apple's argument is much stronger. By penalizing Samsung on only the net income, the jury let Samsung keep almost 2/3 of their ill-gotten gains. It's as if you robbed a bank and were allowed to keep 2/3 of what you took.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #21 of 196
I love this qoute from the Cnet story:
 
" During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said, Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel."
 
 
I wish i could have seen Apple demolishing Samsung claim of infringement with a paper receipt. 
 
This is the company that Samsung fans would say was the good guy?
 
Knowingly accusing infringement which could be easily disproven by their own contract with Intel. Genius!
post #22 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

I hated every cell phone I had until the iPhone.
I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.

1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
4. Sony Ericsson candy bar
5. Another Sony Ericsson candy bar
6. Motorola Razor
7. iPhone 3G
8. iPhone 4

Each was good in their own time.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #23 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

She didn't want the matter going to appeal, because then she'd be under a microscope. So she pushed for a settlement. That *was* one of the theories anyway. 

 

It's gratifying, though, that this went to a jury. 

I would argue for that very reason she was easy on Samsung when she could have sanctioned them multiple times their bullshit. She knew anything she did to punish them would be used for appeal.

 

In fact, I think that was part of Samsung's strategy, to piss the judge off to use that for the appeal process.

post #24 of 196
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #25 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
Each was good in their own time.

I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #26 of 196

I guess it all depends on what country you're in, I wonder why this news isn't getting as much play time...

 

http://gizmodo.com/5937493/samsung-vs-apple-the-south-korean-verdict-is-in

post #27 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D
Okay, so I don't remember the model designation, so I described the Motorola as what it most resembled. It was a brick with a keypad and pull-out antenna. But hey, it was way smaller than a bag-phone, and you could put it in your pocket...if you had really, really huge pockets. The NEC smaller brick could fit in a regular pocket, and you could walk with only a slight limp.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #28 of 196
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
post #29 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaestroJLM View Post

I guess it all depends on what country you're in, I wonder why this news isn't getting as much play time...

http://gizmodo.com/5937493/samsung-vs-apple-the-south-korean-verdict-is-in
Yeah we saw it, but the amount of damages was less than what they would have to pay the teams of lawyers. It was pocket change and Apples sales in South Korea are negligible when compared to the entire picture. Now if this was in China, that would be a horse of a different color.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #30 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaestroJLM View Post

I guess it all depends on what country you're in, I wonder why this news isn't getting as much play time...

http://gizmodo.com/5937493/samsung-vs-apple-the-south-korean-verdict-is-in

That was published a few days ago. It's largely irrelevant because the numbers are quite small. Furthermore, it's clear to everyone that it's a bogus decision. The South Korean court basically forced Apple to license patents against its will because it somehow equates FRAND and non-FRAND patents - unlike every other court in the world who has considered the matter. Read Foss Patents for a review of that decision and why it's not a useful precedent. In fact, it's likely to spur major international fall out since it basically allows S Korean companies to steal whatever they want.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence View Post

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.

That would be dangerous territory indeed. Luckily no one is saying that, since similar ≠ copied.
post #32 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence View Post

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.


This post doesn't make sense. Tylenol's drug patent ran out and you can get acetaminophen as a generic.

 

well, let's go see what the original iphone cost (600 unsubsidized) and the iphone 3g cost (200 w/contract). Also, there are more than one ways to design a phone. If there isn't, why are we all expecting a new design from Apple every year or two?

 

Why doesn't coke allow other soda companies to use their curvy glass bottle design?

post #33 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence View Post

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so,

That's actually a feature of the patent system. Your work is protect from copying for a period of time so that there is incentive to create new things. Then after that period of time expires, the plans for the original design are freely available from the patent office to make copying easier. The patent system is designed to give the inventors a trade; "We'll protect you for a time in exchange for making your knowledge available to the public." That's a win-win scenario.

The alternative is trade secret. Companies are free to keep their innovations secret for as long as they can. If they can't their work can be copied freely as soon as the secret is exposed. If they can (like the formula for Coke) they can continue to manufacture their product without direct copies for as long as they like.

The current patent time is 20 years (recently updated from 17 years to match international patent laws). Maybe this should be shorter for computer hardware, where it seems that anything older than 10 years is so obsolete that it's unusable, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
post #34 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


well, let's go see what the original iphone cost (600 unsubsidized) and the iphone 3g cost (200 w/contract). Also, there are more than one ways to design a phone. If there isn't, why are we all expecting a new design from Apple every year or two?

Why doesn't coke allow other soda companies to use their curvy glass bottle design?

The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.
post #35 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

That's actually a feature of the patent system. Your work is protect from copying for a period of time so that there is incentive to create new things. Then after that period of time expires, the plans for the original design are freely available from the patent office to make copying easier. The patent system is designed to give the inventors a trade; "We'll protect you for a time in exchange for making your knowledge available to the public." That's a win-win scenario.
The current patent time is 20 years (recently updated from 17 years to match international patent laws). Maybe this should be shorter for computer hardware, where it seems that anything older than 10 years is so obsolete that it's unusable, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

Moore's Theorem would point to a dramatically different timeline...similar to chip development.
post #36 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

What’s amazing to remember is that those awful pre-Apple phone designs were exactly the kind of thing we all drooled over up until 2007!

Not me. I hated all cell phones and only used a pay as you go phone if I absolutely had to. They sucked. Tiny screens and small buttons, horrible menu systems.

 

I remember a sales person asking me what i wanted in a phone. This was 2006 or so. I said I wanted a phone that could do multimedia well. Not even knowing what that might be, but I imagined Apple would get right if they ever tried. He showed me some thing and said this one does.

 

I recalling thinking that I could wait for something better.

 

 

 

This is kind of what Jobs always said that you cant ask consumers what they want because they dont know until the see it.

 

Its also why Samsung is guilty as hell as Apple spent the time and money to develop something entirely new

post #37 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead View Post

Another Extremely Obvious Observation,...from the outside    ...not from this Jury's vantaged perception.

 

If Samsung never COPIED,
they would be in the EXACT SAME BOAT as RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, and now SAMSUNG, are today.

 

In other words, it's OBVIOUS that Samsung is having sales success

Unlike, RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, ...and others.

 

Their the only company with some level of success

BUT

 

that success was SOLELY dependent on their COPYING APPLE.

the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well

post #38 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well done, jurors. Well done. Common sense prevailed. If only the trolls on this site were equally inclined. lol.gif

And now we see clearly how distorted the worldview is of the Apple-haters and the rectanglez trolls. They are nowhere near mainstream in their views: their tech/gadget/specs elitism does not represent the view of the average person.

I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.
post #39 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence View Post

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.

Once again class, altogether now! "This has nothing to do with rounded rectangles, this has everything to do with trade dress".  You may want to set down for a minute and let that sink in, or at least try to understand what that means legally. No one is saying Samsung can't make a touch screen phone, but they are saying they can't make a touchscreen phone that looks nearly identical to Apple's. Same connector, same proportions and colors, iconography, etc.  This has everything to do with marketing a product and they leveraged Apple's ability to make a beautiful object for their own benefit.

post #40 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence View Post

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.

Pretty sure apple tried to license its patents to Samsung. Samsung said, more or less, I dare you to sue us, see ya in court, even during the trial they had chances to settle, they dug their heels in and go knocked the F out.

 

Don't kid yourself Samsung was never Apple's direct competitor, they are a follower, a parasite leeching off of apples innovation and success, sure they have sold alot more smartphones that apples other "competitors" but competitors challenge each other to innovate and succeed in the industry, I dare you to name one design, marketing decision that apple has changed due to Samsungs ill gotten success.

 

Samsung is a peon compared to apple and any doubt about that was just cleared up indefinately.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict