clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Apple vs. Samsung juror: 'it was clear there was infringement' (update)

New, 835 comments

One juror has spoken out about the decision in the Apple vs. Samsung trial, saying that in spite of the short deliberation time, the jury wasn't impatient.

original iPhone
original iPhone

Now that the jury has made its decision in the Apple vs. Samsung trial, some members of the nine-person jury have spoken out about why they decided in favor of Apple. According to juror Manuel Ilagan, it was clear after the first day of deliberations that the jury was mostly in agreement. Speaking to CNet, Ilagan cited specific pieces of evidence that helped sway the decision Apple's way, including internal Samsung emails. "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," he explained. "It was clear there was infringement," he added.

According to Ilagan, jury foreman Velvin Hogan helped make the decision process easier for the jury, imparting his wisdom as a patent owner. "After that it was easier." He says that the jury were "debating heavily" on the first day of deliberation — in particular when it came to the bounce back and pinch-to-zoom patents. He also pointed out that the jury didn't have a hometown bias in favor of Apple, saying that "we were going by the judges instructions on how we should go about it and we stuck to that. We weren't thinking Apple or Samsung." And while the deliberation was surprisingly short, Ilagan insists that the decision wasn't rushed. "We weren't impatient," he explained. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."

Update: Jury Foreman Velvin Hogan had some words of his own when speaking to Reuters this morning. "We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," he told the publication during an interview. Hogan also said that Apple's requested damages — more than $2.5 billion — had been too high because it was questionable that the company had truly lost iPhone sales at the hands of Samsung when Apple faced manufacturing issues of its own.

It does sound like Hogan agreed with Apple's overall arguments down the line, however. Calling back to the language Apple attorney Harold McElhinny used in the company's closing arguments, Hogan said "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist."