Has anyone read the interview on the BBC website – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052 you really should…it’s revealing – and ultimately quite alarming.
The jury foreman seems to be absolutely critical in all this – he read the source code, he knew about the patent system, he spoke to Reuters about what he wanted to do – isn’t this a bone-fide case of one man influencing the rest of the jurors – the whole basis of a jury trial is that they review the evidence put before them – not what one person may or may not know….
Do you think if you hadn’t been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
“I think so. But let’s not say me specifically.
Let’s say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different – or it might have been the same.”
…and not forgetting this piece of obtuse logic…
“What was the crucial bit of evidence that convinced you to give a verdict that was so decisive in Apple’s favour rather than Samsung’s?”
“One of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives.
It was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing.”
..err doesn’t the article also mention that the jury rejected Apple’s claim that the shape of its iPad had been infringed by Samsung.
I hope for his sake that Velvin (sic) Hogan of his company Multicast Labs are in no way linked to Apple or any of its investors or supporters. I expect that the tech media will be going through his public (and private if they can) utterances to look for any evidence of bias!