SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A look at the final verdict form in the Apple vs. Samsung case shows key details about the complexity of the case and the decisions of the nine-person jury.
The form also shows a $2.2 million mistake in the jury's initial award calculations, caught by the judge and quickly rectified by the jury. The form provides a guide to how strong or weak some of Apple's arguments weighed with the jury, as well as the identity of the 67-year-old electronic engineer from San Jose who acted as the jury foreman.
The jury was asked to evaluate as many as 24 Samsung devices accused of infringing as many as six Apple utility or design patents and four registered and unregistered trade dresses. In 33 often complex multi-part questions jurors had to determine infringement of each patent for each device across Samsung's corporate body in Korea or one of two U.S. divisions.
In the example below, the jury apparently got confused and said a handset it determined had not infringed an Apple patent was an example of inducement to infringe--a legal impossibility. Here, you can see the corrected form as well as corrected award calculations on other pages.
I wonder if this is the full form. In the article it says 24 products, and above is 25 products.
Howevet the above form adds to $ 955.426.209 and NOT $ 1.049.393.540.
I assume the jury added correctly, so where can I find the complete and filled out verdict-form?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.