Dupa ce a discutat cu un reporter al cNET despre modul in care a fost luat verdictul in procesul dintre Apple si Samsung, presedintele completului de jurati a vorbit si cu reporterii Reuters, iar pentru ei a motivat decizia de a obliga Samsung sa plateasca 1.05 miliarde de dolari. Juratul spune ca niciun membru al completului nu a dorit ca Samsung “sa scape usor”, iar dand o pedeapsa “dureroasa” dar corecta, au dorit sa trimita un mesaj clar tuturor celor care incalca brevete de inventie.
In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apple’s arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room. He also said video testimony from senior Samsung executives made it “absolutely” clear to them that the infringement was purposeful. “We didn’t want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else’s intellectual property,” Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict. However, Hogan said Apple’s damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were “extraordinarily high,” partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to.
Juratul spune ca suma de 2.75 miliarde de dolari ceruta de catre Apple era prea mare, juratii nestiind daca Apple ar fi pierdut atatia bani in cazul in care ar fi produs indeajuns de multe iPhone-uri pentru a le vinde, insa in discutie a fost pus si profitul obtinut de Apple la fiecare vanzare. Nedorind sa ofere decat o pedeapsa corecta, si dureroasa, pentru incalcarea brevetelor de inventie, juratii au considerat ca profitul Apple din vanzarea iDevice-urilor este mai mare de 12% si au acordat suma de 1.05 miliarde de dolari drept despagubire pentru incalcarea brevetelor.
Apple’s damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apple’s percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung. Samsung’s damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said. “We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist,” Hogan said. “We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”
La final juratul a declarat ca unii membri ai completului aveau experienta ca si ingineri ce au lucrat cu brevete de inventie, acesta fiind motivul pentru care verdictul a fost acordat atat de repede. El spune ca toti membrii au ajuns rapid la concluzia ca brevetele Apple au fost incalcate de catre Samsung, iar apoi au discutat cu privire la fiecare terminal in parte pentru a stabili daca acel dispozitiv a incalcat brevetele sau nu. Juratii au ajuns la concluzia ca design-urile Apple sunt unice, iar rezultatul il stiti cu totii.
Hogan worked as an engineer for decades before he retired, and holds a patent of his own. He said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days – much faster than legal experts had predicted – because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple’s patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said. “We didn’t just go into a room and start pitching cards into a hat,” he said.
At one point during the second day of deliberations, jurors turned off the lights in the room to settle a debate about the potential influence screen brightness might have on Apple’s graphics interface. Their verdict: Apple’s designs were unique. “All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another,” Hogan said.
Completul de 9 jurati a dat, probabil, cea mai dureroasa sentinta pe care Samsung a primit-o vreodata si exista sanse mari ca ea sa nu se schimbe dupa apel.
