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

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2014
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.

«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 88
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 88
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member

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

  • Reply 3 of 88
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member
    These jurors must be dumb as bricks. This case is as pretty cut and dry as they get. The evidence is overwhelming.
  • Reply 4 of 88
    slurpy wrote: »
    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.....
  • Reply 5 of 88
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    Eric Schmidt is ex apple employees and he is troublemaker employee.
  • Reply 6 of 88
    slurpy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 88
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    tastowe wrote: »
    Eric Schmidt is ex apple employees and he is troublemaker employee.

    I think you mean ex Apple board member.
  • Reply 8 of 88
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    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.

  • Reply 9 of 88
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    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.

  • Reply 10 of 88
    Why are they asking about evidence that may not have been presented in court?
    What's going on in the jury room?
  • Reply 11 of 88
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

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

  • Reply 12 of 88
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    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. 

  • Reply 13 of 88
    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?
  • Reply 14 of 88
    jcallowsjcallows Posts: 150member
    nice penmanship
  • Reply 15 of 88
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jcallows View Post



    nice penmanship

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

  • Reply 16 of 88
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,261member

    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....

  • Reply 17 of 88
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,019member
    realistic wrote: »
    e1618978 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 18 of 88
    rob53 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 88
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,675member
    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.

  • Reply 20 of 88
    spock1234spock1234 Posts: 161member
    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.