The Apple vs. Samsung case... it's like a bad wreck that you don't really want to see, but you can't tear yourself away from. You rubberneck just to see what new gruesome body part is visible, and when you do, you are disgusted all over again.
That's exactly what we have here today. Apparently, the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, on the Apple vs. Samsung case has been opening his mouth again, and jamming his foot further down his throat. He was strangely willing to sit down for an online interview with Gizmodo, and here are just a couple of bits of swill that spilled out of his mouth.
Guess what though? Determining whether something was patentable was precisely one of the duties that the jury was responsible for, and was expected of them. It makes you wonder if any of them even bothered to read the jury instructions.Demon-Xanth: Did you have the opportunity to ask “Is this something that should be patentable?” during the trial?
Velvin Hogan: @Demon-Xanth – No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
Here's an exchange where Mr. Hogan was questioned about prior art. His response was nonsensical, and he was called out on it.
When it comes to criminal lawsuits, a jury trial makes perfect sense. When it comes to patent lawsuits, it makes no sense whatsoever. In many ways, I feel sorry for Mr. Hogan and the jury. These folks were expected to determine one of the most important cases in the history of tech, and they don't really understand patent law or technology properly. We really need experts determining the outcome of trials like this one. Experts in patent law, and experts in technology. Ah well, even though his statements are likely inadmissible, perhaps the appellate judges will figure this stuff out on their own, and set things right for Samsung in the long run.Wanhang: Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?
Velvin Hogan: @Wanhang – I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents….Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art.
Firewheels: @Velvin Hogan – You’re suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn’t it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?
If, however, you’re suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid. Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due.
Sidenote: Oh, and btw... just to give you guys a heads up. Now that Apple is emboldened by their success, they will be amending their ban-request lawsuit to include the Samsung Galaxy S III and the OG Galaxy Note as well. ~ MobileBloom