Aug, 28 2012

The dust is settling on the Apple vs Samsung patent trial but still, there’s a lot of unanswered questions in the back of many peoples’ minds on exactly how the jury came to the decision to award Apple $1.049 billion in case against Samsung. What we know is that the jury came to their decision 22 hours after the closing statements, a very short period of time when you factor in they had to deal with hundreds of pages of questions. Some have argued the jury (or any jury for that matter) wasn’t qualified to make such a decision on technical matter such as this. Others have suggested that the jury was obviously biased towards Apple and their products that have embedded themselves upon the psyche of consumers in the US. After all, Apple’s strength has always been in taking relatively unknown technologies and making them popular amongst mainstream consumers.

Well, to help get a better understanding of what was going through the minds of the jurors — as well as how they were able to come to a decision so quickly — jury foreman Vel Hogan spoke with Bloomberg West, spilling all the details on what went on behind closed doors. What’s interesting is that he explains how the jury was initially leaning towards Samsung until they got into the definition of what it means to have a patent in America, and how it shouldn’t be violated under any circumstances (assuming of course that the patent system in the US isn’t in of itself, broken). I’ll let Hogan finish his “tell all,” but when you’re finished watching the interview, be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments. I’d love to hear ’em.

[Bloomberg]

local_offer    Apple  Samsung