Jury selected for Apple and Samsung patent trial
The Apple v. Samsung trial has its jury after a day of whittling down the pool yielded ten jurors who will hear arguments and decide on what is being called one of the most important patent cases in recent U.S. history.
Potential jurors were bombarded with a variety of questions on Monday including queries into what devices they own and whether they work for a company associated with the trial, reports CNET. In the end seven men and three women were selected to hear the case.
Because the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose is near Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, it was possible that prospective jurors would work for the company and two potentials were ultimately excused as one worked for Apple and the other for Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. While not specifically on trial, Google's Android operating system is associated with the case and employees of the internet search giant could be biased toward Samsung.
Presiding Judge Lucy Koh also presented her own questions, asking whether jurors knew any Apple or Samsung employees, read any books about the parties, owned stock in either company or had strong feelings about the case which has received fairly wide coverage in the mainstream media. CNET points out that Samsung attorney William Price stressed the last point and compared jury bias to watching a referee make a call against their favorite sports team.
"If it's against your team you say 'that's ridiculous: I saw it clearly, it was a charge!'" Williams said, alluding to a basketball foul. "Because you're already leaning one way, you see things differently."
Illustration of Samsung products before and after the introduction of Apple's iPhone.
Apple first filed suit against Samsung in April of 2011 for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad which sparked a worldwide legal battle that now spans across courts in ten countries.
In the ensuing months an escalation of claims and counter-claims bloated the Apple v. Samsung case to unwieldy levels. Judge Koh ordered a culling of assertions and in May the claims stood at 16 patents, six trademarks, five "trade dress" claims, and an antitrust case, with 37 products accused of violations. A second winnowing phase occurred a week later and got the case down to a more manageable scope. Judge Koh refused to bring a bloated case to trial saying, "I think that's cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I'm not willing to do it. If you're going to trial in July, this is not going to be acceptable."
In an effort to bring some resolution to the dispute, the two companies' executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, participated in mediation talks before the California jury trial began but the meetings were ineffective.
The jury will hear opening remarks from both parties on Tuesday and Judge Koh estimates the evidence portion of the trial could conclude as soon as August 17 but believes an August 20 or 21 date is more likely. Following the presentation of witness testimony the jury will deliberate and render a verdict.
Potential jurors were bombarded with a variety of questions on Monday including queries into what devices they own and whether they work for a company associated with the trial, reports CNET. In the end seven men and three women were selected to hear the case.
Because the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose is near Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, it was possible that prospective jurors would work for the company and two potentials were ultimately excused as one worked for Apple and the other for Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. While not specifically on trial, Google's Android operating system is associated with the case and employees of the internet search giant could be biased toward Samsung.
Presiding Judge Lucy Koh also presented her own questions, asking whether jurors knew any Apple or Samsung employees, read any books about the parties, owned stock in either company or had strong feelings about the case which has received fairly wide coverage in the mainstream media. CNET points out that Samsung attorney William Price stressed the last point and compared jury bias to watching a referee make a call against their favorite sports team.
"If it's against your team you say 'that's ridiculous: I saw it clearly, it was a charge!'" Williams said, alluding to a basketball foul. "Because you're already leaning one way, you see things differently."
Illustration of Samsung products before and after the introduction of Apple's iPhone.
Apple first filed suit against Samsung in April of 2011 for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad which sparked a worldwide legal battle that now spans across courts in ten countries.
In the ensuing months an escalation of claims and counter-claims bloated the Apple v. Samsung case to unwieldy levels. Judge Koh ordered a culling of assertions and in May the claims stood at 16 patents, six trademarks, five "trade dress" claims, and an antitrust case, with 37 products accused of violations. A second winnowing phase occurred a week later and got the case down to a more manageable scope. Judge Koh refused to bring a bloated case to trial saying, "I think that's cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I'm not willing to do it. If you're going to trial in July, this is not going to be acceptable."
In an effort to bring some resolution to the dispute, the two companies' executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, participated in mediation talks before the California jury trial began but the meetings were ineffective.
The jury will hear opening remarks from both parties on Tuesday and Judge Koh estimates the evidence portion of the trial could conclude as soon as August 17 but believes an August 20 or 21 date is more likely. Following the presentation of witness testimony the jury will deliberate and render a verdict.
Comments
"Because you're already leaning one way, you see things differently."
Flash! Anyone with any bias of any sort is biased toward Apple, as evidenced by the 'Crazy Ones' speech! More to follow!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
it was possible that perspective jurors would be associated with the company.
It was ridiculous the first time. This time it's just pathetic.
American Company, American Judge, American Jury. I think I know which way this trial is going to go.
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
American Company, American Judge, American Jury. I think I know which way this trial is going to go.
You need to be very careful here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
American Company, American Judge, American Jury. I think I know which way this trial is going to go.
Bullsh!t Shaun. Samsung being an overseas company figured it could get away with copying and essentially litigate it to death. They got to be making tons of money in their smartphone business not because they actually made a better product, but because they road off the coattails of Apple. There are smug-faced executives at Samsung right now cracking up about how they've been playing Apple through the courts, all the while raking in their iClone cash. Whatever money they have to pay should they lose, will be chump-change compared to the money they made already. This ruling is to send a message to the other players to think twice before they make an iClone. Talk about "patenting rectangles" is just childish rants when you (and other fandroids) have no real content to debate.
So get off your shaky soapbox. You want other people to copy and profit from your hard work, you go right ahead and be happy. Seems like you're the one that will scream "consumer choice will be harmed" when in fact if Samsung loses, the consumer will win in the long term because Samsung will actually have to create their own stuff. Case closed.
This isn't about the money. Heck, Steve Jobs even said so after Schmitdt tried to bribe his way out of the hole he made. SJ had zero interest in getting paid money, just to have Google/iClone makers to stop stealing his stuff.
I made it on the jury after feigning as some luddite who's never even used an iPod and still writes letters with a typewriter. They fell for it. I'll be secretly wearing a Steve Jobs t-shirt when the foreman reads the guilty verdict. Samsung is going down!
The typical empaneled jury - "So you're saying it's not flat?"
Edit: Didn't mean for this to sound like I was describing you. I picked up on the /s.
This is a classic tactic. Since the odds are in Apple's favour it's just a way to dismiss what is likely to happen as being an unfair. He acts as if Samsung will fly over people that speak no English, have no idea about American law, and that Apple's lawyers will just give cocky nods back and forth to the judge and jury.
It makes you wonder about the psychology of someone that would brand an entire country, their people and their legal system as being unfair and racist without the possibility of due process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You need to be very careful here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
You continue to make yourself look like a fool whenever you open your mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Bullsh!t Shaun. Samsung being an overseas company figured it could get away with copying and essentially litigate it to death. They got to be making tons of money in their smartphone business not because they actually made a better product, but because they road off the coattails of Apple. There are smug-faced executives at Samsung right now cracking up about how they've been playing Apple through the courts, all the while raking in their iClone cash. Whatever money they have to pay should they lose, will be chump-change compared to the money they made already. This ruling is to send a message to the other players to think twice before they make an iClone. Talk about "patenting rectangles" is just childish rants when you (and other fandroids) have no real content to debate.
So get off your shaky soapbox. You want other people to copy and profit from your hard work, you go right ahead and be happy. Seems like you're the one that will scream "consumer choice will be harmed" when in fact if Samsung loses, the consumer will win in the long term because Samsung will actually have to create their own stuff. Case closed.
This isn't about the money. Heck, Steve Jobs even said so after Schmitdt tried to bribe his way out of the hole he made. SJ had zero interest in getting paid money, just to have Google/iClone makers to stop stealing his stuff.
No doubt you're the same people who said the British Judge who dismissed Apples' claim a few days ago was either stupid, biased, corrupt or incompetent.
You don't like it when someone says the same thing about an American Judge do you. HYPOCRITES.
I wonder how they were able to find someone who never used an Apple or Samsung product in that area. It they did then that person must have been living in a cave!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is a classic tactic. Since the odds are in Apple's favour it's just a way to dismiss what is likely to happen as being an unfair. He acts as if Samsung will fly over people that speak no English, have no idea about American law, and that Apple's lawyers will just give cocky nods back and forth to the judge and jury.
It makes you wonder about the psychology of someone that would brand an entire country, their people and their legal system as being unfair and racist without the possibility of due process.
Wasn't there talk here on an older thread that Judge Koh is of Korean descent and that it's plausible that she may favor her home country's company¿
god of UK patent justice?
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
No doubt you're the same people who said the British Judge who dismissed Apples' claim a few days ago was either stupid, biased, corrupt or incompetent.
You don't like it when someone says the same thing about an American Judge do you. HYPOCRITES.
Yes, we're "hypocrites" for thinking that a terrible decision was a terrible decision. It's obviously part of our deep-seeded hatred for the crown and continued resentment that we weren't handed all of the British North America holdings in 1789.
There probably was and it's just as shortsighted and sad as what Shaun is claiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, we're "hypocrites" for thinking that a terrible decision was a terrible decision. It's obviously part of our deep-seeded hatred for the crown and continued resentment that we weren't handed all of the British North America holdings in 1789.
seeing as how you're a global moderator and all, is this the official appleinsider position?
There was and it was shameful. The slide into a bigotry or prejudiced claim with no supporting evidence is telltale of the simple and demonstrative of almost the greatest form of ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
American Company, American Judge, American Jury. I think I know which way this trial is going to go.
Really?! Tell that to the USFL.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/sports/sp-18643_1_jury-finds-nfl-guilty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Football_League
/
/
/
Originally Posted by Pooch
seeing as how you're a global moderator and all, is this the official appleinsider position?
It's the official position of US-based AppleInsider users. ????
This should have been the US in 1847, and darn it, we won't let you forget it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, we're "hypocrites" for thinking that a terrible decision was a terrible decision. It's obviously part of our deep-seeded hatred for the crown and continued resentment that we weren't handed all of the British North America holdings in 1789.
No you're HYPOCRITES for questioning the Judges motives and impartiality rather can simply accepting that it was his unbiased decision based on the facts and the evidence presented to him.
If you think the British Judge is corrupt who is to say that the American Judge is not also corrupt.