Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Just because Google had it before the patent was filed does not mean that they invented it.
Very good sign for Apple. Look to the magic man who always cuts to the chase.
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.
I think you mean ex Apple board member.
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.
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.
What's going on in the jury room?
wonder how many of the jurors are focusing on "motive" and why its even a factor.
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.
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?
nice penmanship
yeah, I was surprised to see that coming from a judge.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.