Since the Apple vs. Samsung trial ended with a jury verdict last Friday, we've started to hear from the jurors on how they rendered their decision so quickly. Now, Bloomberg TV has just run an extensive 15-minute interview with jury foreman Velvin R. Hogan, a 67 year-old engineer who holds patents of his own.

From the interview, it's immediately obvious that Hogan was a driving force behind the verdict's rapid turnaround. In describing the process the jury used to render a verdict, Hogan says they were initially "at a stalemate" because "some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process." This was on the first day, after which Hogan said he had "an a-ha moment" in which he decided "I could defend this if it was my patent." From there, Hogan laid out his story for the jury and then the group proceeded to go "patent by patent, claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us."

"Nobody [on the jury] owned an iPhone"

That's not to say there weren't complications along the way, but Hogan says that the jury simply said "we're going to move on and come back to this" when it encountered problems. It sounds like the strategy of not getting stuck on a particular point helped move the jury along, as Hogan said "we learned enough going forward that when we came back it made the process a lot easier."

Hogan also denied that there was any bias on the jury, "Nobody owned an iPhone, and not everyone owned Apple equipment," Hogan says, before adding, "I'm a PC person." He also notes that there was no bias for Apple (the trial being only a few miles from the company's headquarters) or against Samsung for being a Korean company: "we set aside the close proximity [of Apple] and looked strictly at the evidence." The jury found that evidence "overwhelming" - several times, Hogan said that it "spoke for itself."

The interview closed with Hogan affirming that the jury was qualified to make this ruling. While he described the process as "complicated," Hogan believes that "any jury of our peers could have reached this decision." Despite some challenges at the beginning of the process, the jury was never "so confused that we felt we were going in the wrong direction." You can watch the entire interview with Bloomberg TV below.