The biggest story in the tech world this weekend is undoubtedly the Apple vs. Samsung trial. While it may be a sore spot for Android fans around the globe, the evidence has been weighed and measured, and the jury has spoken.

To find out how things went during deliberations, both Reuters and CNET scored interviews with a couple of jurors. Between the two interviews, it's clear that some of the jurors had a difference of opinion, and some debates were even described as "heated."

Fortunately, some of the jurors had at least a somewhat technical background and were able to offer some insight into the more complicated aspects of the trial. For example, the jury's foreman, Velvin Hogan, holds a patent himself, so he has an understanding of the system.

One has to question the level of technical background however, considering some of the statements made to CNET by Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors on the trial; for example, he is cited as saying:

Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel.

Ever seen a bezel-less smartphone? Neither have we.

That little niggle aside, Ilagan also said they had a difficult time addressing the issue of unregistered trade dress.

We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims. That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. Its not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that.

Hogan, the aforementioned jury foreman was pretty clear that the ball was played in a fair court (no pun intended), too:

We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property.

He went on to say that Apple's demand for $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high," but the jury didn't want to let Samsung off with a "slap on the wrist." Instead, they "wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

Both interviews are definitely worth a read for more insight into how the jury came the conclusions that they did - hit the source links below to check them out.

[CNET, Reuters via All Things D]

Cameron Summerson
Cameron is a self-made geek, Android enthusiast, horror movie fanatic, musician, and cyclist. When he's not pounding keys here at AP, you can find him spending time with his wife and kids, plucking away on the 6-string, spinning on the streets, or watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on repeat.

  • baran

    "I realized that's a big deal if Samsung can't sell those phones," Ilagan said. "But I'm sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance.... Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."

    Oh my, where should I even begin?

    • ElfirBFG

      Nokia and RIM are still selling phones? *trollface.jpg*

      • PINJ

        Take Note; WP8/London Is Just Around The Corner

        • ElfirBFG

          To be fair, WP is the only current mobile OS I've never used, but I really don't see it being for me if it's anything like W8. It also won't be open-source, so I don't really care for it seeing as that's a big deciding factor for me. (I use Android and Ubuntu for a reason.) I once had a Zune, and I can say that I liked it more than any iDevice I'd ever used, but that was before getting an Android. I won't count Windows out of the mobile arms-race(or x86-race as it may be[come], kekeke).

      • Nas

        LMAO Nokia and RIM of the 90's made so much money that they are dying slowly Microsoft has Nokia on Life support but dont know how long that will last.

  • Daniel Wiggins

    Well until reading that, i believed the trial was correct on it's claims. But now i think it was ran by morons... Really? some of those quotes are ridiculous. As much as i despise Apple ( this has been going on since before Android was developed) I still think in some cases Samsung did make their phones look like Apple's. But checking to see if it has a bezel? really?


      agree 100%

  • NeedName

    Seems rather clear after reading enough of these "juror stories" that this jury was lead by one, or a few, individuals who had a clear bent to find in favor of apple in all matter, but tried not to look to obvious — they failed on that point.

    I could see them finding in favor of a few things but some of the decisions are just off the wall. No way in hell can you say "pinch-to-zoom" is valid after watching a presentation of it prior to the existence of iOS. Not to mention that they found the least similar iphone devices to be the most infringing and therefore awarded the most money for.

    and we'll just ignore all the mistakes on the forms. . .


      or the fact that Apple manipulated evidence and didn't even care...wtf!

  • Michael Ellis

    This.... http://t.co/M0ShdjDr Says everything. If a lawyer would take 3 days just to READ it. Then how could these people read and decide in 3 days? And honestly, the only devices to avoid the hammer, the Galaxy tabs, looked the most of any of them like an Apple device. I am dumbfounded how one can patent round corners and a bezel on a screen.


      wow i just read this and it is amazing. How can they get away with this garbage. I bet judge koh will not over turn it...probably triple a BS verdict

  • http://blog.ravrahn.net/ Owen Cassidy

    It feels like they said "Right, Apple should get a billion dollars, how can we give it to them?"

  • Ricardo Moura Rocha

    And after they all decided they took their iPhones from their pockets and took photos of themselves with it making fun of the consumer and of the patents system...

  • http://profiles.google.com/patrickscott52 Patrick Scott


    Here is a great write up on this. Completely discredits the jury. This verdict could be thrown out!

    • http://twitter.com/NotMyBro NotMyBro

      LMAO... groklaw... written by clueless anonymous paralegals.

      • Michael Ellis

        There are very many accredited professors and lawyers saying that they couldn't even go through all the info that fast

        • http://twitter.com/NotMyBro NotMyBro

          They don't have to go through all that info duting a deliberation. They were present at the trial!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439352651 Michael Vlachos

            they should however have gone through the instructions to the jury... rather important to know just what your supposed to be deciding and how....

          • Michael Ellis

            And skipping the issue of 'prior art' shows that they were in a hurry and did not take the time to carefully decide.

      • Brett Glisson

        Groklaw is many things, but one of them is not being clueless. They dig deep into the cases they follow, and have volunteers in the courtroom whenever they can. And the thing about PJ is, she's been right on the cases that Groklaw tracks.

  • Wes Coates

    Too bad the fate of this boils down to 12 people that are to stupid to get out of jury duty

    • http://twitter.com/NotMyBro NotMyBro

      It's actually 9 people. I think you're the stupid one.

      • Wes Coates

        That's what I said dork

  • Jon Garrett

    They call a billion dollars reasonable? I cant think of any single company that ever had to pay a billion dollars in fines or damages. hell, the entire tobacco industry had to pay 2 billion which was still insane but that was for an entire industry.


      only one i can think of was BP which was i think 30 billion but that was a tangible damage...apples loses are really hard to justify...the fact you can really get someone to buy a box that says samsung and not apple is hard to believe but than again....people are fucking stupid

      • Darrell V.

        Then maybe Apple should sue Samsung's customers for not buying their iPhones. After this absolute farce of a trial, it would make about as much sense.


        • DCMAKER


  • cooldoods

    If you read the CNET interview, Ilagan admitted that the jury skipped the debate on whether prior art invalidated Apple's patents because "it was bogging us down."

    • andrew__des_moines

      I wonder if such comments can be used as evidence in appeals. I can not fathom prior art being ignored -- this plays right into Apple's hands of patenting obvious designs and solutions that have been done before rather than original.

  • master94

    This is why the world makes fun of Americans and call us stupid, apparently our fellow citizens can't tell the difference between a Samsung and Apple phone. I mean really if you see a logo on the phone that says Samsung and think it's an iphone you deserve to be ripped off.

  • TheSchwartz

    Ach SO!
    It looks like an amateurs cirkus!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507973810 Martin Cataldi-Rogers

    could this be used in any appeals process , understanding that the what comes from below rule, but if the jury didn't do its job properly or acted insufficiently ?