有消息指蘋果與三星官司中, 陪審團主席對三星存有一定偏見及不公平行為

http://www.hkepc.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1848752&extra=&page=1

自 Oracle 告 Google 開始, 我一直都有追有關 Android / Android Device 侵權的新聞.

關於 Apple v. Samsung 侵權, 陪審團極速咁判三星死刑. 結果來得太快, 太假, 同埋吾夠認真.

- 法官提出了一共 109 頁超過 700 條判決指引. 但陪審團用左少於三日(每天八小時的時間, 共大約 21 小時)完成判決書, 似乎他們想趕及週未前完成審議.

- 以 21 小時計, 他們平均只用了 1.8 分鐘去辨論每一條指引. 呢場世紀侵權訴訟, 講緊 2.5B 美元賠償. 陪審員有冇認真係睇指引被受質疑.

- 陪審團的主席自己都持有專利. 呢個係佢專利內容的連結, 審決結束後佢接受傳媒訪問佢咁講:

“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”



- 呢位主席似乎一開始已經 bias 左, 仲引導住其他陪審員走, 其中一位陪審員咁講:

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "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," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."


無理由判左第一個專利係侵權, 跟住其他專利就係 "all the same" 瓜...

呢位主席亦都同法庭代表講所有判決結果全部都無根據指引:

The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.



無根據指引達成裁決而裁決結果是"有侵權"會有咩後果? 根據 Graklaw 分析, 很大機會 Samsung 會用 Rule 50(b) 推翻所有裁決重審.

以上的都是 Groklaw 料, 大家有興趣可以去這裡研究下. 不過大部份人都吾鐘意睇因為太多英文.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

利申: 本人有 iPad2, iPhone4S, Mac Book Air 2011 版, HTC Magic Android Phone
本人亦持有 Android Developer License
本人亦是一個 Android Free App 及一個 Android Paid App 的 Owner