Apple-Samsung jury foreman Vel Hogan on the jury: ‘Nobody owned an iPhone’ [Video]

by Robert Nazarian on Aug 28th 2012, 9:01am
tagged apple, lawsuits, Samsung

There has been a lot of talk about Apple getting “home field advantage” in the recent Apple vs. Samsung case on patent infringement. Recently jury foreman Vel Hogan sat down with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West”, and said that none of the jury members owned an iPhone. Of course that wasn’t all as the interview was roughly 17 minutes long. You may wonder what evidence seemed the most damaging, and Hogan mentions the fact that Google warned Samsung that their prototypes resembled Apple’s, but Samsung ignored it. He also mentioned J.K. Shin’s internal email that said the comparison between the iPhone and Samsung’s prototypes was that of “heaven and earth.”

source: bloomberg

» See more articles by Robert Nazarian

Categorized as Android Lawsuits, Android Manufacturers, Android News

http://www.facebook.com/dave.lefevre Dave LeFevre

The Foreman is a patent holder, however. I think that was unfair.
- Lost_Fan
  
  Why would that be unfair? Because Samsung lost?
  - phor11
    
    Unfair because he’s way more likely to want to protect patents instead of invalidate them for being obvious.
    - Lost_Fan
      
      Then he was the perfect candidate. If patents should be invalidated then so should Samsung’s, Motorola’s, etc. Because NOW they are obvious. If Apple’s patents are so obvious, why didn’t someone else patent them? Patents should be protected. Just because YOU say they are obvious doesn’t mean they are.
      - phor11
        
        Apple patented a rectangle shape…
        Come back to reality buddy.
        
        Lost_Fan
        
        Do some research…you are sounding like an idiot now.
        
        anakin
        
        @Lost_Fan: actually. Apple DOES own the patent for the “rectangle shape with rounded corners”. I can’t remember the *exact* number for the patent but i do know they have tried to use it in a german court last year (august 2011) and also tried it in this last trial in the US. Both times, it was rejected (talk about evil).
        
        “The jury threw out the seventh Apple patent: Apple had a patent for the
        iPad shape, a rectangular shape with rounded corners, and the jury
        decided that no company could patent a geometric shape. (A victory for
        common sense.)”
        source: http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/tag/robin-feldman/
        
        Also, according to Apple, they DO own the “rectangle shape with rounded corners”. They have asked Samsung to make a design that has an “Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.”.
        source: http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/apple-never-designed-the-ipad-they-undesigned-it/
        
        And on another note; Apple also tried to make the same claim with Design Patent 087: Ornamental design of the iPhone. Look it up.
        
        So yeah, phor11 is right.
        
        likesinovation
        
        Obviously your a icrap fan… Take your locked down piece of shit and fuck off…
        You don’t know what your talking about..
        
        http://twitter.com/jj_hh1 J Hamburg
        
        No they didn’t. Thats what Samsung tries to make people believe. Watch the video and listen to exactly this question of Chang…
      - http://profiles.google.com/ee2718 admin 1
        
        Because they are not all as stupid as you seem to be!
        
        Obvious means obvious to someone skilled in the art (ie. a programmer or device designer, not someone with the IQ of an iFanboy).
        
        Besides, why would anyone patent something which would be invalidated by obviousness or prior art and pay thousands of pounds for an “invention” that is invalid, except through ignorance/stupidity or with the intention of nefarious patent trolling in lawsuits like this.
  - rom3o90
    
    yes cuz the one that was right lost
    - G
      
      Apple got to know its worth after Samsung improvised.So apple should thank Samsung and get to work and face the competition in the market.period.
  - http://profiles.google.com/ee2718 admin 1
    
    Let me spell it out for you:
    
    The foreman apparently has filed a patent for what is effectively a Tivo, years after the Tivo and other similar devices were on the market, and is therefore invalidated by prior art – exactly the same legal concept as Apple’s rather dubious patent claims being countered by Samsung’s prior art evidence.
    
    If this is the case, then the foreman has a vested self interest in ignoring facts and jury instructions, coming up with his own unique way of interpreting patent validity and prior art, and orchestrating the remaining members to do the same, by posing as an expert witness without the chance of cross examination etc. in order to ensure Samsung lost the case and punishing Samsung with exorbitant punitive damages. By doing this he would be setting a legal precedent that broadens the scope for junk patent claims and reduces the prior art defence in patent cases, and sets very high penalties.
    
    This verdict, and the extravagant penalties would have the self serving purpose of increasing his chances of being able to extract payments from manufacturers for his own junk patents of a similar nature by allowing him to intimidate manufacturers into paying him just to buy off lawsuits, regardless of how invalid his patents are.
    
    Now do you understand?
BigRonW

Rather earlier than Apple and St. Steve, an American named Samuel Colt walked into the Patent Office in London, and tried to patent the revolver, which he claimed to have invented. The Patent office pointed to the many examples of revolvers already in existence, and suggested that he’d merely improved (slightly) on existing designs. They declined to grant him a patent, but accepted his claim to “own” the idea of an open-frame revolver. In other words, commion sense prevailed.

Colt then sailed back to the USA, repeated his spurious claim to have “invented the revolver”, applied for a US patent…. and was granted a monopoly on revolver manufacture for the USA. The US Patent office seems not to have got any smarter (or better educated) in the intervening more-than-a-century,