I don’t know about you, but I’m still profoundly shocked and whip-lashed from the outcome of the Samsung vs. Apple patent lawsuit. While the jury was still in deliberations deciding on the outcome of this case, I always thought to myself what I’d give to have an ear in that room with the 9 jurors. I’m sure many of you can share the same sentiments as we would all love to know what went down in there that ultimately cost Samsung more than a billion dollars. Thankfully, one of those 9 jury members by the name of Manuel Ilagan has stepped forward and provided all of us with some insight on what was talked about and why they gave Apple this landslide victory.
According to Ilagan, “We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement.” That statement alone pretty much tells us that Samsung had no chance in this battle right off the bat. Ilagan also provided what he, and the other jurors, thought were damning evidence against Samsung:
“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, they 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.”
Ilagan also pointed out that a licencing deal that Samsung had with Intel piled on even more votes towards Apple:
“Samsung’s offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said, Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.”
» Read the rest