You're inventing a false narrative, whole cloth.
Then again, maybe that's not what he meant to say. Because as read, these quotes suggest some pretty absurd things.
They said they skipped the question. They skipped the question. The contention was they skipped the question. You disagreed, and then agreed.
You are acting the part of a troll, and being purposefully obtuse, and dishonest.
Normally, their viewpoint is right in line with most of the tech world. It just so happens that this time around, the tech camp is pretty well split on who the good guy was in this case.
The reason you feel this way is because you're biased.
It's ok, I'm biased too.
The problem is, you guys seem to think that you can accuse anyone of being "biased" as if it were a counter argument that excuses you from the need to defend your points.
Here you're derailing the discussion because someone hat the temerity to speak the truth: Groklaw is biased. In fact, "biased" is being generous. They're driven by ideology to the point of being dishonest.
This article is a good example with their selective quoting and their lies about what was done.
For instance, the claim that the jurors had only 2 days to consider the evidence is a lie. They had the whole trial.
You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise.
Do you really think that people are upset about Samsung and Apple? They're upset about software patents and how ludicrously easy they are to get and yet how absurdly difficult they are to render invalid. The jury here says they decided (under the advice and guidance of a patent holder) to stop debating the prior art issue.
This is what we have a problem with.
For what it's worth, I think Samsung did attempt to copy Apple with its first round of phones and they did a damn poor job of it. Cheap knock offs looked like cheap knock offs, and I think they were made willfully. However, I think many of Apple's patents are invalid because they do not constitute real, protectable innovation.
If this were Samsung vs. HTC I'd be hoping for exactly the same outcome: a demonstration of the facile nature of software patents in the US. They do nothing to protect innovators; they only serve to artificially limit competition. For the sake of the industry and the economy I live and work in, they need to be radically reformed.
You were taking offense at the use of the word. I was, in a sense, agreeing with you, and asking you to recognize that bias does not mean lacking in credibility. It simply means having an opinion.
Bias is not the weapon that some on hacker news seem to think it is (and your position was one as if it had wounded you....)
Hope that makes it more clear!
From a dictionary.
> I was showing you how people on your side of the patent debate use the word, since you were on the, shall we say, receiving end of it this time.
No. You were burning down straw men.
> I was, in a sense, agreeing with you, and asking you to recognize that bias does not mean lacking in credibility.
It does, in fact, hurt credibility to be biased. When it stops being an opinion accompanied by honest reporting and becomes manipulation (be it deliberate or not) is usually where we start calling it bias.
> Hope that makes it more clear!
I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only assume this is part of some larger conversation you are having with everyone at once and no one in particular.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
I hope you don't consider CNET biased. If anything, they are usually criticized for being Apple-biased.
And since they explicitly had to make the choice on the instructions (Y/N) on infringement, the safer assumption is that they did get back to it.
Given that they also have been quoted as not needing the jury instructions, actively ignored those instructions by indicating that the damages awarded were punitive rather than compensatory, and that they could have spent, at most, a few minutes on each of the hundreds of questions, it's hardly out of line to think that this verdict was rushed.
Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that's what they did, but equally there's no evidence to suggest that they eventually went back to that question and debated it further.
Given that they admitted to ignoring the instructions on punitive vs. compensatory damages, it's not a stretch to imagine they also ignored the instructions on coming to a unanimous decision.
For example, Jurors have the right to find a guy not guilty when caught red handed with marijuana simply because the law is unconstitutional. They have that right and that is intentional in our system. Judges on the other hand, tell jurors in their instructions that they "have to find them guilty if they believe he possessed the drugs". When judges do this, I consider it jury tampering, and unfortunately for innocent pot smokers, too many jurors listen to the instructions.
And justice required them to use the courts to "send a message" and punish Samsung with more than "just a slap on the wrist"?
Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing:
"The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down.""
Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim.
Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim.
Claim: They skipped a question. Quote: We skipped a question.
I think it's fair to say they skipped a question.
Even you admit to this with your own quote: "As far as I can tell, there's no evidence from those quotes that they skipped prior art, so much as skipped the task to move forward on others before circling back around to it." You say here that there is no evidence that they skipped, but there is evidence the skipped the question and most probably eventually came back to it later.
However, skipping did occur, which was the original contention backed up by statements from those who would know.
It would seem that you are the one trying to invent, poorly, as you can't even avoid contradicting yourself in your own comment.
But, you might ask, why would skipping and coming back matter as long as they addressed the question.
Context. The questions were ordered in a specific order. Addressing them out of order is, in essence, answering the questions "out of context." Indeed, the quotes suggest (though admittedly not directly) that by skipping the question, they were able to continue. But if that question had been answered as they had expected it to, would it have impacted the outcome? I believe so.
After all, the context in which you answer a question determines the answer (which is fairly obvious).
In the end, you are trying to paint the jurors in a different light. One in which they abided by the rules set forth (which they've already admitted to not doing[1]) and using the worksheets provided to reach the judgement (again, something they've admitted to modifying).
So no, I'm not inventing anything. Couple that with the "expertise" offered by a patent holder, it's fairly obvious there are issues with the ruling.
That all being said, maybe it's okay the jury ignore the provided worksheets and rewrote them. Maybe it's okay that they ignore instructions given to them by the judge. After all, they are the jury, and they our last line of defense. If we can ask a jury to find someone innocent facing an unjust law, we can expect them to make their voice heard in other cases as well.
Regardless, my point still stands: They skipped a question, they admitted to it, as did you, and you seem foolishly trying to take on other conditions as if somehow that makes the "fact" untrue.
Honestly, how can you even suggest they didn't skip the question, and then say they did, and try to blame someone else for inventing false narratives? I mean, besides being dishonest?
[1] They were instructed: "You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." However, what they "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
This is the same sort of reality twisting that we see out of the likes of the birther movement -- facts and supporting data take a back seat to whatever supports an appealing narrative.
Our jury also selected a lawyer as foreman--from everything I've read, and my experience, I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led.
--I've used Apple products for years, so I'm not trying to construct an anti-hero narrative--
Also, you really like the word "narrative".
You have no evidence of this what so ever. And the other logically consistent scenario is that the jury didn't follow where the expert led.
And it is not a complicated matter IMHO. Once the document was produced detailing Samsung intentionally trying to copy the iPhone UI and the warning from Google then it was pretty obvious which way this was all going.
You, on the other hand, make unsubstantiated claims. You equate me with birthers, you contradict yourself... and even when faced with concrete evidence, you dismiss it out of hand. You even go so far as to lie by claiming I offered no supporting evidence.
No, I've provided evidence. You've merely attempted to insult and claim that the quotes are out of context, and when asked to explain yourself, you merely repeat, as if it will somehow make a difference.
Still, you've proven you are more interested in trolling with the birther remark. This is not reddit. If you cannot discuss things like an mature adult, leave. Feel free to disagree, but insults, ignorance, and trolling are not welcome here.
But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
I do. At least, I tried. Anything that couldn't be found in the thread, I quoted.
You, on the other hand, make unfounded and untrue claims.
> But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
I didn't do that. You can reread my comment, and you'll see that your statement is incorrect.
Also, by extrapolating all of what?
* That they skipped the question, which they admitted to? You cannot deny this. * That they did not follow the instructions as prescribed? They admitted to this as well. * That context is important? Something even you agree to.
All of this backed up with quotes above.