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.

If he supports patent law as it is, he should man out and say it and not dodge the question. A jury is within their authority to shoot down a case if they don't agree with the details of the law itself. This is not academic, jury nullification apparently happened a lot with controversial laws in the US's history.

3 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

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

Some people say it's nice, because by the same reasoning Samsung shouldn't be infringing because Apple work also won't run on Samsung's phone.

7 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

(personally I find it hard to believe that this shows an intent to infringe rather than just a wilful negligence...)

It is common practice in law to combine the two. Malice and gross negligence are effectively the same. The logic goes that either the person knew and didn't care (i.e. malice) or knew but didn't care (gross negligence).

Also, the unedited interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

8 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

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

And personally, do you think [the US patent system] is broken and sick and needs reform?

I believe we definitely need to continue the discussion. What I applaud is the fact that there is a discussion going on. Not everybody agrees with me or agrees with the decision that we made.

But that's OK. Whether I believe it is sick or broken or needs to be fixed or not, the rules are today what they are.

But if the community of engineers at large believe that it needs to be changed or re-reviewed, this court, this trial, and this set of jurors - myself included - was not the genre for that. It was not the right place.

That wasn't our authority and it wasn't what we were supposed to do.

However, Congress is one vehicle, and the President has a cabinet post for technology, that is the other one.

Keep the buzz going, keep the debate going, and if you genuinely believe that change is in order, there is an outlet for that.

8 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

It is common practice in law to combine the two. Malice and gross negligence are effectively the same. The logic goes that either the person knew and didn't care (i.e. malice) or knew but didn't care (gross negligence).

Also, the unedited interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

hmmm... I'm distinguishing from a third category here of "deliberately intended to infringe". That said I can see why the legal system would (and possibly should) treat them the same. 

At his answer about the patent system - that is one of the most ridiculous politician style side stepping answers I've ever read. He did not answer the question put to him. I can only assume this means his answer to the question is "No but I know everyone will hate me if I say that".

1 hour ago, GoddersUK wrote

hmmm... I'm distinguishing from a third category here of "deliberately intended to infringe". That said I can see why the legal system would (and possibly should) treat them the same. 

"Deliberately intended to infringe" is the same as malicious infringement.

At his answer about the patent system - that is one of the most ridiculous politician style side stepping answers I've ever read. He did not answer the question put to him. I can only assume this means his answer to the question is "No but I know everyone will hate me if I say that".

I read it to mean exactly the opposite - i.e. "Yes, the patent system is completely broken, but if I say that, Samsung will use that as grounds for an appeal claiming that I wasn't impartial".

What he really said was "Even if the patent system is broken, it is the job of congress and the president to discuss it with the public and come up with a new system. It was not the job of the jury to decide if the patent system was broken. It was the job of the jury to decide if Samsung infringed Apple's patents, and that's what we did".