Tech-War Jury Would Make Nietzsche Proud

     SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) – Getting existentialist on Apple and Samsung, questions from jurors deliberating the second patent showdown show curiosity as to why the global litigation is necessary at all.
     “Is there any evidence available to us that would answer this question: What did Steve Jobs say at the moment he directed, or decided to prosecute, a case against Samsung,” the jury asked in the first of four notes sent to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday. “Was Google mentioned and/or included in that directive, or subsequent directives, to be included in any way in the case?”
     From the opening statements and throughout the trial, Samsung’s attorneys from the firm Quinn Emanuel noted that the late Apple co-founder called for a “thermonuclear war” against Google’s Android operating system in his autobiography, and that the lawsuits against Samsung were really just a way of starting that war.
     Samsung’s smartphones and tablets run on the Android system.
     Apple’s lawyers, with Morrison & Foerster, reminded the jury during closing arguments that Google is not a defendant in the case.
     The second and third jury notes asked how Apple and Samsung chose the patents over which they are suing, and whether executives knew about them before deciding to launch the patent-infringement war.
     This go-round pits Apple against Samsung regarding the alleged infringement of five Apple patents, including the “slide-to-unlock” feature, in newer Galaxy products. Samsung’s countersuit involves two patents that it says Apple should have licensed on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory – or FRAND – terms, but didn’t.
     Apple wants Samsung to cough up another $2.2 billion for its infringements, adding to the $900 million two other juries awarded the company in 2012 and 2013 . Samsung has demanded just $6 million for Apple’s infringements.
     The jury’s final question asked Koh whether there was any evidence that delved into the mind of Samsung’s CEO that they could use in their deliberations.
     “What did the CEO of Samsung say or write at the moment he first heard about Apple Corp. believing Samsung was infringing their intellectual property,” the jury asked. “What subsequent direction did he give to his team as to how to respond?”
     Unfortunately for the jurors, Koh answered all four questions in exactly the same way.
     Koh had told the jury to “consider only the testimony and exhibits that were received into evidence.”
     “Now that the trial is completed, the evidence cannot be supplemented,” she added.
     The jury continued deliberating quietly Thursday, with no further requests as of 1 p.m.

%d bloggers like this: