CNET también está disponible en español.

Ir a español

Don't show this again

HolidayBuyer's Guide

Juror highlights strongpoints of Apple's case

Before and after

Crisis of design e-mail thread

Bouncing back

Intel's chips, Apple's problem

Question dodging

Just what stood out as some of the strongest evidence in the minds of the jury in Apple vs. Samsung? CNET spoke with one of the jurors, who told us about what went on during the group's deliberations. Click through to find out.

Caption by / Photo by Vicki Behringer

According to Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors who decided the case, the group found Apple's chart depicting the phones Samsung was doing before and after the iPhone compelling. Samsung's counterargument against that had been to point to a number of devices it was working on internally before the iPhone became public.

Caption by / Photo by Apple

Internal discussions didn't save Samsung in the instance of an e-mail thread from the company's top brass saying how Samsung was having a "crisis of design." Ilagan called the thread "damning."

Caption by / Photo by Apple

One of Apple's clean sweeps in the verdict was that all Samsung's smartphones were found to infringe on Apple's patent covering bounce-back. In short, this is what lets a user scroll beyond the edge of an image, Web page, or list, and have it bounce back onto the screen.

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

Caption by / Photo by Apple

In its case against Apple, Samsung said Apple infringed on two of its 3G patents covered in a baseband chip used on the iPhone and iPad with 3G. Apple fired back, saying Samsung was wrongfully suing, since Apple had a licensing agreement with Intel -- the company that made the chips in question -- and that the deal protected Apple from lawsuits.

According to Ilagan, the jury found this issue to be one of the more exceedingly technical aspects of the case, but that he and the jury foreman were savvy enough to help the rest of the group understand it based on the evidence.

Caption by / Photo by Apple

Last but not least, Ilagan said the group was turned off by some of the answers provided by Samsung's executives during depositions.

"Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions," Ilagan said. "They didn't answer one of them; they didn’t help their cause."

Seen here: one of the inventors of a Samsung patent used in the case, effectively refusing to read a patent his name is on.

Full coverage of Apple vs. Samsung is here.

Caption by / Photo by Apple
Updated:
Up Next
Apple Park's visitor center is now...
19