I thought people might be interested to see this interview with one of the jurors from the Apple/Samsung case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052

tl;dr:

  • Crucial evidence = memos from Samsung/Google meeting where Samsung decided they didn't care that their products were similar to Apple's (personally I find it hard to believe that this shows an intent to infringe rather than just a wilful negligence...)
  • Prior art was irrelevant since you can't load Android onto Samsung's old smartphones
  • Samsung's claims against Apple not upholdable since they used different processors
  • He thinks the verdict would be different if he wasn't on the jury
  • Admits they "set the bar rather high", could encourage further litigation, claimed their verdict was "following the rules" 
  • Thinks there are no wider implications, no harm to conusmers
  • Apple gained no "home advantage"

So yeah... does very little to reinforce my faith in either the US legal system or modern IP law/patent systems.

We all know who to thank in a decade time when we have an innovationless monoculture of a technology industry.