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]