"I wasn't confused, but some of the jurors were". Does it seem crazy to anyone else to have non-experts making enormous rulings like this? This bumbling fool did some "calculations" to "zero in on 14%" ("I'm familiar with P&L statements") and decide that Samsung owes Apple a billion dollars!?!? I'm not saying that Samsung is innocent, but this seems like a ridiculous process.
That's how our justice system works. I'm glad that any citizen gets to be on a jury rather than some elite set of experts. We can't have it both ways. If given the choice between "experts" and average citizens on a jury I'd go with average citizens every time. I don't care how dumb or smart they are. What I care about is if we decide that a certain kind of person should be on certain juries then that creates a new kind of class system and would hurt us more than help. The job of the lawyers throughout the trial was to explain these things to the jury and give them the information they need to make a decision. It's fine to have a jury full of people who have no clue about the patent system because the onus is on th lawyers in the trial to present the facts. If they fail to do so on either side then they have to deal with the consequences.
It's not fair but it's equal. America's judicial system is not about fairness so much as it is equality. Equality isn't always fair but in a country like this it's the best we can do.
Now what I'm about to say isn't an attack on you but instead just am observation. When people disagree with something they always try to explain why the bad thing happened. In this case it sounds like you're looking to explain away a decision you disagree with by saying the jurors should have been experts. If the jurors were experts and someone disagreed with the ruling then inevitably someone else would be sayng they should not be experts because of bias or some such reason.
They make life and death decisions in criminal cases. Why not make decisions for a few percent of companies turnover?
Given the numbers of phones Samsung is selling the per device fine isn't that high. Compared to copyright infringement statutory damages in files sharing cases the amounts are tiny.
Edit to add:
Some fair points were made in replies about the complexity of the patent law compared with criminal/murder cases but the parent to this was commenting the scale of the damages decided rather than complexity and that was the focus of my comment.
Yes it is scary but I'm not sure I can think of less scary options for really serious criminal cases.
It's also worth noting that while there is a right to a jury in a patent trial, it's not required. If both sides had agreed, the case could have been heard by the judge or a court-appointed special master. Obviously, one side or the other (maybe both) thought that a jury trial would work in their favor.
It was interesting hearing Nilay Patel (the verge) talk about this. He's very pro-patent, so he has a particular point of view, but his take is "yes the jury was incompetent but that's exactly how it's supposed to be". The underlying point being, both sides have the chance to educate the jury during the course of the trial. They have weeks to show them evidence, help them understand the laws and patent process, etc. If at the end of that time the jury is still incompetent to make a decision then it is the fault of parties in litigation. It seems to me this is as much Samsung's mistake as anything; they allowed in a jury member who was both incompetent, pro-patent and highly assertive and persuasive, and then they failed to anticipate and counter his influence effectively during the trial. If they were paying attention to these things they might have got a much better outcome.
>Does it seem crazy to anyone else to have non-experts making enormous rulings like this?
No, it seems democratic. The law is about the will of the people --which is what the "jury of your peers" tries to capture--, not about what some experts say.
Experts can serve the court with their "expert advice" (which lots of times in such cases is just BS, depending on which side pays their bills).
It's dead easy as a lawyer to find experts with Phd's and all, to testify both pro and against patents, or both pro and against each company in this dispute).
Don't blame the jurors. They're just regular folks who are earnestly trying do their best as though they're performing a civic duty. In reality, they're being played like a fiddle.
Instead, blame the f'ed patent system, the lawyers who exploit it for every last dime, and the companies that wield patents as a weapon against competition. We've come a very, very long way from the true meaning and intent of intellectual property protection.
I agree, I doubt anybody that doesnt have a law degree would really know how to interpret any of these laws in a normal environment with google to help, let alone being on the jury of a high publicity dispute like this with all that added pressure
> Don't blame the jurors. They're just regular folks who are earnestly trying do their best as though they're performing a civic duty. In reality, they're being played like a fiddle.
I blame them a fair amount. They had hundreds of questions to answer and were asked to take as much time as they needed. Instead, they cranked them out in a couple days.
The pay is shit, the tasks are boring and inscrutable, and people have lives to get back to. But I don't think that's a full excuse for phoning it in like this jury did.
Since prior art is invalid because it can’t run on the apple processor and vice versa then these patents can’t apply because they cannot be ran on the Samsung device and vice versa
IMO the verdict is the polar opposite of the verdict from Judge Alsup on Oracle v. Google.
One took it's time, the other rushed.
One made sound decisions based on evidence, the other was off the cuff.
One is clearly designed to be resistant to appeals, the other was in appeals before the first trial even finished.
I wish there was some way to incentivize the former instead of the latter.
More than the juries, its the approach of judges that seem strikingly different: Alsup - no loose ends, Posner (Apple-Motorola case) - no bullshit, koh - no time to think approach.
Require those involved in law to have wider education with study of history, science and maths as standard so that they have no excuse not to understand things that are useful to their job, like ballistics for instance, or logic.
It would have completely sucked to have been on the jury for this one. You don't get paid while you're not at work; you have to listen to expert bozos who have been paid millions for their testimony and who say some strange things under cross-examination; the lawyers all got paid handsomely too and you're basically only there because the patent system isn't working properly (why doesn't USPTO decide about prior art? aren't they required to do this when initially examining the patent?).
Then, once you've made a decision to the best of your ability, all of the tech press poops on you for weeks. Weaksauce!
Hopefully, the USPTO will re-examine the patents in question and resolve the prior art discussions in a better way than a jury could/has.
In the end it doesn't matter, Thomas Jefferson was looking a dozen moves ahead when he helped lay the groundwork for a free society. Other checks/balances/appeals, and the incredulousness of the people, will eventually win out over special interests.
The patent system won't change until people are affected personally, when they realize that it's costing them jobs and money. I'm always astounded when people stand up for the rich people and organizations who have already won, and give them even more, like they owe them something.
My main complaint with this whole case is that the jurors completely ignored their own power. They could have nullified or come up with any way they wanted to handle the case, including setting a real precedent like saying since there is prior art everywhere, there's really no case, and thrown it all out.
I worry that we've become so uneducated about civics that we may no longer be capable of cultivating a free and evolving organic government. We're going to find ourselves stuck with archaic laws invented by people who have long since died.
In the US, and in the Bay Area where I live, it is not uncommon to have an acquaintance notify folks that they may be on "Jury Duty" so schedules need to be flexible. And then to have that same person get advice from well meaning individuals about ways to answer questions so that they will be excused.
I've sat on two juries (both pretty minor, and one where the defendant switched their plea to guilty on what would have been the first day). It isn't a waste of your time, it is useful to know how this system works and to do you part to make it as effective as it can be.
The question I ask people trying to get out of a jury duty commitment is whether or not they would want someone like them who could be on their jury trying as hard to get out of it. Sort of a "pay it forward" way to look at it.
Going back and forth over this particular Juries deliberation and verdict is something Samsung is paying their lawyers to do, still haven't seen what the lawyers plan is for this case going forward.
What I don't understand is the Judge/Lawyers must know that the Jury aren't experts in technology or the law. Why do they not spend a substantial amount of time explaining prior art, the laws pertaining to prior art, and the Jury's options with regards to prior art?
For example, after the two sides have presented their case, why not spend a day or two just explaining the basics of the laws in play to the Jury before they start deliberations?
Easy, Judge Koh set forth an extremely limited pool of time each party was allowed in front of jurors. And what about putting it in the brief / instructions the jurors are intended to read? Easy, the jurors didn't read it; they were nearly prepared to execute maximum damages against Samsung before entering deliberation.
I'm surprised they didn't boot him after finding out he had a patent to his name. That seems like it would obviously put you on the pro-patent-issuer side.
Legally, that is like booting someone out of a jury case in an auto accident because they have a driver's license. You can simultaneously believe, as most of us do, that the software patent system is in dire need of reform while at the same time understanding that individual patent lawsuits aren't opportunities to relitigate patent law.
1) Patent filing must be made a really cheap process; so that even an individual earning a normal salary is able to file patents. This way Prior idea(art) comes to focus immediately.
2) There should be "no country(area) boundary laws" for Patents. A patent filed in particular country should be applicable world wide.
That would require all the world governments to agree on what a patent is and what it can protect. As it stands now the nations don't agree much on anything, let alone something as important as patent law.
Does jury selection for civil cases work similarly to how it does for criminal cases, with both sides questioning jurors and getting a certain number of strikes? If so, I can't help but think that whoever was responsible on Samsung's side for letting this guy through is getting reamed right now.
"Basically, he's admitting that he doesn't understand how prior art works. The fact that the software wouldn't run on the same processor is meaningless."
He also doesn't seem to understand how software works either. More worryingly, neither does techdirt, assuming they do think that it is a fact. It would run really bloody slowly, admittedly.
I think you missed the entire point. Someone could have demoed this on an i386, it doesn't mean implementing it on ARM is a novel, patentable invention.
[+] [-] brittohalloran|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpatrianakos|13 years ago|reply
It's not fair but it's equal. America's judicial system is not about fairness so much as it is equality. Equality isn't always fair but in a country like this it's the best we can do.
Now what I'm about to say isn't an attack on you but instead just am observation. When people disagree with something they always try to explain why the bad thing happened. In this case it sounds like you're looking to explain away a decision you disagree with by saying the jurors should have been experts. If the jurors were experts and someone disagreed with the ruling then inevitably someone else would be sayng they should not be experts because of bias or some such reason.
[+] [-] josephlord|13 years ago|reply
Given the numbers of phones Samsung is selling the per device fine isn't that high. Compared to copyright infringement statutory damages in files sharing cases the amounts are tiny.
Edit to add:
Some fair points were made in replies about the complexity of the patent law compared with criminal/murder cases but the parent to this was commenting the scale of the damages decided rather than complexity and that was the focus of my comment.
Yes it is scary but I'm not sure I can think of less scary options for really serious criminal cases.
[+] [-] wmeredith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vannevar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rustynails|13 years ago|reply
You've got to get past this mindset. Was there prior art? Did Apple really invent this? Were the patents specific, non-obvious, etc.
No, No, ...
When you add that the outcome stifles innovation and a you add a broken IP system, you have so many nails in the coffin, it isn't funny.
Case closed.
[+] [-] zmmmmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aretiste|13 years ago|reply
your comment about anchoring is spot on.
[+] [-] batista|13 years ago|reply
No, it seems democratic. The law is about the will of the people --which is what the "jury of your peers" tries to capture--, not about what some experts say.
Experts can serve the court with their "expert advice" (which lots of times in such cases is just BS, depending on which side pays their bills).
It's dead easy as a lawyer to find experts with Phd's and all, to testify both pro and against patents, or both pro and against each company in this dispute).
[+] [-] angdis|13 years ago|reply
Instead, blame the f'ed patent system, the lawyers who exploit it for every last dime, and the companies that wield patents as a weapon against competition. We've come a very, very long way from the true meaning and intent of intellectual property protection.
[+] [-] mwctahoe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adgar|13 years ago|reply
I blame them a fair amount. They had hundreds of questions to answer and were asked to take as much time as they needed. Instead, they cranked them out in a couple days.
The pay is shit, the tasks are boring and inscrutable, and people have lives to get back to. But I don't think that's a full excuse for phoning it in like this jury did.
[+] [-] gokhan|13 years ago|reply
Since prior art is invalid because it can’t run on the apple processor and vice versa then these patents can’t apply because they cannot be ran on the Samsung device and vice versa
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/samsun...
[+] [-] geophile|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eumenides1|13 years ago|reply
One took it's time, the other rushed. One made sound decisions based on evidence, the other was off the cuff. One is clearly designed to be resistant to appeals, the other was in appeals before the first trial even finished.
I wish there was some way to incentivize the former instead of the latter.
[+] [-] hythloday|13 years ago|reply
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2003/0...
[+] [-] option_greek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randallu|13 years ago|reply
Then, once you've made a decision to the best of your ability, all of the tech press poops on you for weeks. Weaksauce!
Hopefully, the USPTO will re-examine the patents in question and resolve the prior art discussions in a better way than a jury could/has.
[+] [-] mullingitover|13 years ago|reply
Speak for yourself. I work at a Fortune 500 company and jury duty is paid, and I don't think this is at all uncommon.
That being said, I'd rather be at work than on jury duty any day of the week.
[+] [-] esolyt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wccrawford|13 years ago|reply
... Which sounded less horrible in my head. Ugh.
[+] [-] zackmorris|13 years ago|reply
The patent system won't change until people are affected personally, when they realize that it's costing them jobs and money. I'm always astounded when people stand up for the rich people and organizations who have already won, and give them even more, like they owe them something.
My main complaint with this whole case is that the jurors completely ignored their own power. They could have nullified or come up with any way they wanted to handle the case, including setting a real precedent like saying since there is prior art everywhere, there's really no case, and thrown it all out.
I worry that we've become so uneducated about civics that we may no longer be capable of cultivating a free and evolving organic government. We're going to find ourselves stuck with archaic laws invented by people who have long since died.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
I've sat on two juries (both pretty minor, and one where the defendant switched their plea to guilty on what would have been the first day). It isn't a waste of your time, it is useful to know how this system works and to do you part to make it as effective as it can be.
The question I ask people trying to get out of a jury duty commitment is whether or not they would want someone like them who could be on their jury trying as hard to get out of it. Sort of a "pay it forward" way to look at it.
Going back and forth over this particular Juries deliberation and verdict is something Samsung is paying their lawyers to do, still haven't seen what the lawyers plan is for this case going forward.
[+] [-] FreeKill|13 years ago|reply
For example, after the two sides have presented their case, why not spend a day or two just explaining the basics of the laws in play to the Jury before they start deliberations?
[+] [-] thezilch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siglesias|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drcube|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alok-g|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|13 years ago|reply
Makes quite interesting reading in this case though.
[+] [-] RyanMcGreal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donatzsky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jarihd|13 years ago|reply
2) There should be "no country(area) boundary laws" for Patents. A patent filed in particular country should be applicable world wide.
[+] [-] jeremyarussell|13 years ago|reply
Edit: clarification
[+] [-] lftl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
He also doesn't seem to understand how software works either. More worryingly, neither does techdirt, assuming they do think that it is a fact. It would run really bloody slowly, admittedly.
[+] [-] alanctgardner|13 years ago|reply