or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
In its first full day of deliberations, the jury deciding Apple and Samsung's patent trial in California sent five notes to Judge Lucy Koh asking for further clarification on key case points including Steve Jobs' thinking behind the suit.


Source: U.S. Courts


A total of five notes came out of the jury room on Wednesday, four of which asked that additional evidence be provided regarding Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, how the patents-in-suit were selected and Samsung's response to hearing news of Apple's claims of infringement.

In all but one request, Judge Koh referred jurors back to exhibits presented during the trial, noting that presented evidence cannot be supplemented.

The first note requesting information on Jobs shed some light on what avenue the jury is headed. It asked whether evidence is available to show what Jobs said "at the moment he directed, or decided to prosecute, a case against Samsung" and if Google was mentioned in that directive or subsequent orders.

Apple made it clear that Google is not on trial, though Samsung attempted to shield its products by pointing out alleged infringing features were built into the Android operating system. The Korean company went so far as to bring in a Google executive to prove features like slide-to-unlock were invented by the Internet search giant before Apple patented them.

Moving to patents, the second jury note asked how Apple selected its five alleged infringed properties, for which the company is seeking $2.2 billion in damages. Jurors want to know if the properties were presented to Apple execs before or after it was decided that the company would level charges against Samsung.

The jury also requested evidence pertaining to Samsung's purchase of two patents, including the name and title of the person who recommended the buy. In a follow-up, it was asked if evidence could be provided to show what Samsung's CEO said on hearing news that Apple believed its patents were being infringed.

As mentioned above, Judge Koh denied all evidence requests and directed the jury to documents already presented in the trial.

In its final question, the jury asked for eight copies of the Jury Verdict Form. Judge Koh provided the reproductions, but noted that only one can be the "official" entry when a verdict is handed down.

Today's notes were much more substantial than Tuesday's request for office supplies like Post-it notes and highlighters.

The jury will return to the courthouse on Thursday and is scheduled to deliberate every weekday until a verdict is reached.

post #2 of 88
Was slide to unlock invented by Google, or did Eric Schmidt take the invention from an Apple BOD meeting and give it to Google before it was patented?

Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #3 of 88

Very good sign for Apple. Look to the magic man who always cuts to the chase.


Edited by pazuzu - 4/30/14 at 6:02pm
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #4 of 88
These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.
post #5 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.
Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....
post #6 of 88
Eric Schmidt is ex apple employees and he is troublemaker employee.
post #7 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.

I'd like them to do a through job anyway. If they rush too quickly they might make mistakes that cause a retrial or reversal on appeal. I really don't doubt that they'll find mostly for Apple, but I have no idea how much money they'll give.
post #8 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastowe View Post

Eric Schmidt is ex apple employees and he is troublemaker employee.

I think you mean ex Apple board member.
post #9 of 88

sounds like someone in the jury is trying too hard to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.   Someone would like to throw out Samsung patents if they can prove that they were only acquired to fight against Apple's lawsuit.  I think the fact that they acquired them at a late date, and brought them here, already proves that. They just have to reason it out. They don't need the evidence they think they need. Just look at the date of acquistion.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Was slide to unlock invented by Google, or did Eric Schmidt take the invention from an Apple BOD meeting and give it to Google before it was patented?

Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.

I know it was claimed during the trial that Google had slide to unlock before Apple patented it but no evidence was presented to validate that claim. It is very easy to claim you did something first, proving it is whole different story.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #11 of 88
Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?

"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 #12 of 88

wonder how many of the jurors are focusing on "motive" and why its even a factor. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #13 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?

I agree.. something weird is going on in there. Just wonder if it is one person or multiple people. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #14 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....

The suit is about patent infringement. Samsung argued against it using a bunch of randomly thrown darts, including prior art, it's not worth much, and Google's got my back.

The jury wants to know what Steve Jobs said when they decided to sue? They want to know what Samsung CEO said when they learned about the suit? Why? How does this have anything to do with deciding an infringement case?

"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 #15 of 88
nice penmanship
post #16 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

nice penmanship

yeah, I was surprised to see that coming from a judge.;)

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #17 of 88

I've been on two juries and the judge gave us instructions, including only using the facts and information presented during the trial. This jury asking for information outside those guidelines should receive additional instructions from the Judge or get yelled at by her to stay focused on the facts. Remember, just the facts....

post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Was slide to unlock invented by Google, or did Eric Schmidt take the invention from an Apple BOD meeting and give it to Google before it was patented?


Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.
I know it was claimed during the trial that Google had slide to unlock before Apple patented it but no evidence was presented to validate that claim. It is very easy to claim you did something first, proving it is whole different story.

It is courtroom wrangling and nothing more. To say Google had it in house before Apple patented it is meaningless. Apple had it in house before Apple patented it. If Google had the "idea" first, they could try to invalidate Apple's patent otherwise they need to STFU. I have heard nothing saying Google had the idea before Apple or that Google made any attempt to patent it or invalidate it with this in-house prior art. Oh but they never said they had in house prior art, because they don't. Just a bunch of white collar criminals.
post #19 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I've been on two juries and the judge gave us instructions, including only using the facts and information presented during the trial. This jury asking for information outside those guidelines should receive additional instructions from the Judge or get yelled at by her to stay focused on the facts. Remember, just the facts....

It sound like Judge Koh is pointing them back to the evidence presented during the trial, but I'm surprised they got away with even asking for "more evidence" that wasn't presented.

"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 #20 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

nice penmanship

It's terrible.  It's not even proper cursive.  It's like fancy printing with connected letters.

 

Any whoo... these questions seem irrelevant to me and to the trial.  They need to judge the case on the merits as it was presented.  If it wasn't presented, then the Judge won't have answer.  She's probably face-palming at every note and just asking them "Didn't you pay attention at the trial?"

 

I am.  Although, I doubt I could have stayed awake either.  I can barely read the summaries.

post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


The suit is about patent infringement. Samsung argued against it using a bunch of randomly thrown darts, including prior art, it's not worth much, and Google's got my back.

The jury wants to know what Steve Jobs said when they decided to sue? They want to know what Samsung CEO said when they learned about the suit? Why? How does this have anything to do with deciding an infringement case?

I suspect the jury is trying to determine how credible Apple and Samsung are. After the jury determines if Samsung infringed on Apple's patents, they still have to figure out if the infringement was 'willful'. That's probably where the motive and credibility comes in. 

 

In the previous case, which Samsung lost, it was clear to the lay observer that Samsung knowingly and willfully used Apple's IP. Yet, Judge Koh used a highly illogical interpretation of the facts to avoid trebling the damages as was required by law. She has also allowed Samsung and its lawyers to escape sanctions for multiple violations of the court's orders. Her extreme interpretation of the 'causal nexus' guidance provided by the Appeals Court is another example of her unwillingness to impose penalties on Samsung.

 

I believe Apple learned from that experience and presented its case differently this time, making the jury question Samsung's credibility. Given multiple instances of Samsung getting caught in lies, this approach increases the chances of getting a pro-Apple verdict. Once you recognize that Samsung is a serial liar it is a lot easier to also see that it is a thief.


Edited by spock1234 - 4/30/14 at 9:01pm
post #22 of 88
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....

 

Duh. Because justice will have been served accurately. That is praiseworthy.

 

Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
It's terrible.  It's not even proper cursive.  It's like fancy printing with connected letters.

 

My children will learn cursive. They’ll write in it exclusively, even. This is just disgusting.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #23 of 88
I, for one, believe that Samsung should be commended on their work during this trial.

The sheer amount of bullshit that they've provided has already been shipped to the Amazon where it will aid in rebuilding heavily deforested areas.
post #24 of 88
"Runaway Jury"
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
What's going on in the jury room?

This is why more than 90% of all civil cases in the US never go to trial let alone a jury. A jury is unpredictable and they may not understand the evidence presented. What's going on in the jury room, that is always the billion dollar question. 

post #26 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I, for one, believe that Samsung should be commended on their work during this trial.

The sheer amount of bullshit that they've provided has already been shipped to the Amazon where it will aid in rebuilding heavily deforested areas.

Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt. 

 

They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day. 

post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


It sound like Judge Koh is pointing them back to the evidence presented during the trial, but I'm surprised they got away with even asking for "more evidence" that wasn't presented.

 

The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post
 

Samsung did a great job. While Apple had experts from MIT talking about valuation, Samsung took a very simple approach and talked about a royalty. Also clouded the case by bringing Google into the mix. The burden in a civil case is much lower than a criminal case, Samsung needed to blow as much smoke as possible to create doubt. 

 

They are guilty but guilty people with money go free in this country every day. 

 

Agreed, they did a damn good job, the lying rat bastards.

post #29 of 88

So Koh directed the jury back to exhibits already presented. That's pretty vague. Was it a sweeping comment simply telling them "stick to what was presented to you" or did Koh mention specific exhibits that were relevant to the questions asked? Depending on how you read it you could suggest the jury is going off on a tangent (looking for things that weren't talked about) or were just asking for information on something that was actually presented during trial.

 

The amount of evidence presented is going to be substantial, yet we've really only seen small bits and pieces (the interesting stuff). Just because we haven't seen these things mentioned doesn't mean they weren't. And unless Koh specifically states that they can't ask questions about things that weren't presented as evidence then I don't think we can assume the jury is on a fishing expedition.

 

Does anyone have a transcript of what Koh actually said?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post




I think you mean ex Apple board member.

 

Rubin was the ex-Apple employee.

 

I don't know why Samsung never brought him up, linked as he was to Apple, Android and Google, he even worked on some of the same features.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

sounds like someone in the jury is trying too hard to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.   Someone would like to throw out Samsung patents if they can prove that they were only acquired to fight against Apple's lawsuit.  I think the fact that they acquired them at a late date, and brought them here, already proves that. They just have to reason it out. They don't need the evidence they think they need. Just look at the date of acquistion.

 

The other thing is, the only high level executives Samsung called were from Google.

 

Where were the Samsung executives?

 

Why wouldn't they face the court?

 

Perhaps the jury are looking for an answer to what the people who run Samsung think about this situation.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


......  To say Google had it in house before Apple patented it is meaningless. Apple had it in house before Apple patented it.... 

LOL 

post #33 of 88

The jury clearly seems to have trouble rapping its collective brain around the fact that it's Samsung on trial for infringement. It's Samsung that produced infringing products without a license (and sold them), not Google. The software Google produced does not itself infringe, because the software alone is nothing without hardware on which to run it.

post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Rubin was the ex-Apple employee.

 

I don't know why Samsung never brought him up, linked as he was to Apple, Android and Google, he even worked on some of the same features.

 

Samsung doesn't want to throw Google completely under the bus - they just want to run over their big toe.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
 

I know it was claimed during the trial that Google had slide to unlock before Apple patented it but no evidence was presented to validate that claim. It is very easy to claim you did something first, proving it is whole different story.

At the time, what mattered for patenting is who invented first--and Apple was likely first. (Since the American Invents Act of 2013, what matters is who filed for the patent first.) Apple likely both invented and filed for the patent before Google (re)invented, but the patent may not have been awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until after Google (re)invented.

post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Yet the minute a verdict is reached in Apple's favor you'll be singing their praises.....

One can be dumb and still make the right decision. But even saying Samsung is guilty is right but the penalty is something else entirely. What if they say Samsung only owes $40 million? I'd say they made the right decision but for the wrong amount… because they are dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

sounds like someone in the jury is trying too hard to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.   Someone would like to throw out Samsung patents if they can prove that they were only acquired to fight against Apple's lawsuit.  I think the fact that they acquired them at a late date, and brought them here, already proves that. They just have to reason it out. They don't need the evidence they think they need. Just look at the date of acquistion.

That's why I think the questions were fine.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.

Agreed. It may be a consequence of Samsung throwing everything at the wall, whether it had a chance of sticking or simply dribbled down. The jurors may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and complexity of all the crap and at this stage having difficulty sorting through the junk pile. I have the impression that this will take them awhile. Cross your fingers that there are jurors who have the moxie to help get their deliberations organized. Otherwise this will end up being a lengthy fuster cluck.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The jury is hung up on trivialities, which indicates to me that there are either troublemakers in the mix or they simply do not understand what they are there to do.

I don't think we can extract that from the given information. We can say the questions they ask were trivial but that doesn't mean that they are only focusing on them. It could simply be one juror that wanted some answers to those questions, but I see nothing that suggests that is what all are hung up on or what they are only focusing on.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Was slide to unlock invented by Google, or did Eric Schmidt take the invention from an Apple BOD meeting and give it to Google before it was patented?

Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.

If Google had it first, why did they not patent it? I remember when my niece had an iPod touch for Christmas, I said if they made a larger one if these and put some office software in it, it could replace my net book. Does this mean I invented the idea if an iPad - No. And similarly just because some Google employee may have been looking at slide to unlock before Apple patented it does not mean they invented it. The idea of the patent is to protect the right of the person with the patent, not someone who claims they thought about something similar but did nothing about it.
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Rubin was the ex-Apple employee.

 

I don't know why Samsung never brought him up, linked as he was to Apple, Android and Google, he even worked on some of the same features.

that's stretching it a teensy bit.

 

You make it sound like he worked at Apple in 2005 or something. He was at Apple from 1989 - 1992...his being at Apple is likely irrelevant.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases