In cursul noptii un complet format din 9 jurati a dat castig de cauza companiei Apple intr-un proces intentat de catre Samsung, acordandu-le celor din Cupertino peste 1 miliard de dolari despagubiri pentru ca Samsung le-a incalcat brevetele de inventie. Pentru ca vorbim despre un proces atat de important, cei de la cNET au reusit sa discute cu unul dintre juratii procesului si acesta a facut o marturisire foarte interesanta. El spune ca juriul nu a avut de la bun inceput o parere unanima cu privire la ce ar trebui sa primeasca Apple si cu privire la numarul de terminale care au incalcat brevetele de inventie, insa din prima zi de deliberari s-a ajuns la concluzia ca Samsung a incalcat brevetele.
We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented, Ilagan said. “It was clear there was infringement. Well, there were several. 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. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea — I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn’t answer one of them. They didn’t help their cause.
In ceea ce il priveste pe el, acesta spune ca email-urile directorilor Samsung in care se discutau modalitati de copiere a functiilor iDevice-urilor, pozele cu terminalele fabricate de Samsung inainte si dupa aparitia iPhone-ului plus marturiile directorilor Samsung care au evitat sa raspunda la intrebarile avocatilor, au contribuit deciziv la luarea verdictului. Juratii au avut uneori discutii aprinse cu privire la solutia finala, insa in doar 21 de ore de lucru, adica aproximativ 3 zile lucratoare, au reusit sa finalizeze decizia prezentata aseara.
It didn’t dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day. We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent — what was prior art –because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn’t something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.
Juratul spune ca ofensiva celor de la Samsung cu privire la brevetele de inventie incalcate de catre Apple a avut un rol important in luarea deciziei deoarece coreenii au gresit acuzand compnia americana. Samsung a licentiat catre Intel tehnologii pentru comunicatii 3G, Intel a produs niste chip-uri baseband pe care le-a vandut catre Apple si prin achizitie cei de la Apple au dobandit dreptul de a folosi tehnologiile, deci Samsung nu putea sustine ca Apple a incalcat in vreun fel un brevet.
La final ramane experienta presedintelui juriului care, fiind detinator de brevete de inventie, a explicat celorlalti jurati procesul de obtinere a unui asemenea document, dar si baza in care se acorda ele. Juratul spune ca dupa ce toti au auzit aceste explicatii lucrurile au devenit mult mai simple si decizia a fost luata mult mai usor. Practic juratii au stiut de la o anumita parte a procesului ca Samsung a incalcat cu rea credinta brevetele Apple si tot ce a ramas a fost sa stabileasca daca Apple trebuie sa primeasca cele aproape 2.8 miliarde de dolari cerute sau mai putin.
