Such disappointment has been spread among the Android community after the jury verdict as many of us thought that jury would see it Samsung's way, and see Apple for who they truly are. This was not the case however, and the jurors are speaking out about how they felt. As I'm sure they are being ridiculed, threatened, and god only knows what else!
One of the jurors made the move to speak, this juror was Manel Ilagan, followed by a video interview given by jury member Foreman. I have to give the men credit for speaking publicly, and I'm sure they will probably getting a lot of "hate" mail.
According to llagan "some" of the jurors knew from day one that Samsung was guilty, however in Foreman's video interview his view of the outcome was opposite of their actual verdict. Ouch, that hurts guys. Llagan then had an interview with CNet and he shared with them that the jurors had many "heated" debates before reaching the verdict." He is also stating that evidence was gone through with a "fine tooth" comb so to say, and that there wasn't one piece that went un-noticed. There was absolutely "NO RUSHING," Ilagan claims in the process. He further stated:
"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."Advertisement
If Apple can claim infringement then I think more business' should be able to start suing others for "copycat" designs. I mean look at the grocery stores, almost every grocery store you go to, has a "knock off" or "copy cat" version of the bigger, more expensive brands. Now who's to say Campbell shouldn't sue Wal-Mart for their "Great Value" line of grocery items provided for a lesser price? Doesn't that hurt Campbell and it's consumers? This case can be used as an example in so many way that it just make this verdict seem ridiculous! I mean what is this case going to tell others?
Illagan further went on to state this when he was asked to provide a more detailed statement about this "compelling evidence":
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, [Apple] showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea — I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."Advertisement
I think I'm at the point where I am so sick of it all, I no longer have a side. I think they should just destroy the patent system and start over. This is no longer about "competing," this is about who can be on top and destroy the rest.
Illagan also claimed Samsung lost their vote during the process where they claimed Apple had copied their patents regarding the 3G wireless technology. What it boiled down to (in the jurors eyes) was a "licensing agreement" Samsung had gone into with Intel. It was stated in that agreement that Samsung wouldn't be allowed to sue "companies that acquired the Intel chips in question." Well guess who that was? You guessed it, good ol' Apple.
Many have walked away from this case feeling it was very one-sided especially in regards to the nine person jury. Well, what do we know about these jurors? I can tell you this much, they are not just some average consumer off the street. They are some pretty talented technology literate people. Each juror had some type of "expertise" in regards to the case. You had Velvin Hogan, who was the foreman, who had past owned a company who had to go through the process of getting a patent. Hogan has also had past experience on a jury (3 times to be precise). Then you have Luzviminda Rougieri and Aarti Mathur who "helped keep the discussion on track and within the rules." You also have Peter Catherwood who comes as a project manager at AT&T. So, not your average people off the streets like I said. These people are trained in the type of fields needed for this case. So maybe those of us that thought, "Well what do these people know about patent litigation? They don't know one thing about how it works," maybe we were wrong to think that. They sound pretty talented and bright to me.
However, you can see the statements here by llagan, and then when you watch the 17 minute video interview with juror Foreman and see they are significantly different. Seems odd? Wouldn't you agree?
Foreman also stated that every juror did NOT have an iPhone device. Actually Foreman stated in his interview that he owns Samsung devices.
If you truly want to get to know more about one of the jurors and hear jury Foreman's side, please visit the link here: Jury Foreman discusses Apple-Samsung Trial, Verdict.
It was hard to read some statements released from llagan as with each sentence I read my stomach churned, and my mind started to shout things not appropriate for this audience. This case is far from over, and we will have to hear about it for months. I can definitely understand certain aspects given by juror Foreman, but my place is to stay out of politics for now, because I can understand why the jury ruled the way they did, but I can also understand the other side as well and this side is where my alliance is seated.
Let us hope that somewhere, someone has the common sense to see what "foolishery" this all is and finally puts an end to it all.
Source: CNet / Bloomberg