IT WORLD CANADA CURATED: Wondering how the jury reached its US$ 1 billion verdict, and why it was unexpectedly fast? We have some answers, plus who the real beneficiary of the verdict might be
What happened behind closed doors at the Apple-Samsung patent trial? Quite a lot according to these stories published over the weekend after Friday night’s verdict , which saw the jury order Samsung to pay more than US$1 billion in damages for violating Apple iPhone patents.
Here’s a roundup of interviews and analysis: First, jury foreman Velvin Hogan — a patent holder himself — told Reuters that he was persuaded by the video testimony of Samsung executives that the patent infringement was deliberate. He also thought Apple’s demands for damages were high. Hogan also told MercuryNews.com, the online news service of the San Jose Mercury, detail about the deliberations including how his experience as a patent holder shaped his decision.
Another juror, Manual Ilagan, told CNET.com that while some discussions were heated, the jury didn’t rush its verdict. He said he found some Samsung executive emails “pretty damning.” What you may also find interesting from this piece is how Ilagan’s recollection of how influential foreman Hogan was on others.
If so, then Apple’s ability to have a person with patent experience in the IT industry on the jury may have been decisive.
Ilagan’s discussion of why the jury didn’t support Apple’s claims against Samsung for infringing iPad designs is also interesting.
Trying to make the best of the decision, Computerworld U.S. reported that Samsung was in court Sunday asking a California court to lift an earlier ban on selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 because it infringed a particular Apple patent. The jury ruled against Apple on that specific allegation, so Samsung argued the ban can’t be supported.
CNET.com also reported that Samsung sent an email to its employees after the verdict predicting consumers and the market will favour companies that “prioritize innovation over litigation.”
Meanwhile Groklaw, a blog by a paralegal, found an interesting wrinkle: To help the jury calculate possible damages, the judge gave a form to the jury. Samsung found some inconsistences and asked the judge to send an ammended form to the jury. In turn, the jury sent back a note asking for an explanation. When the jury’s verdict and damages were released,
things still didn’t line up right. So, the author argues, the verdict won’t stand up on appeal.
Finally, here a different take on the trial: A Forbes contributor argues the real winner was Microsoft and Windows phone. Read it and see if you agree.
Sponsor: IBM Canada Ltd
Moving from the back office to the front lines: CIO insights from the Global C-suite Study
This report from IBM’s Institute for Business Value summarizes the results of more than 4,000 interviews with C-suite executives worldwide about the changing role of technology and the Chief Information Officer (CIO).