You know, it's possible to reference a comment in a comment. Follow the
hash mark link to a permanent link to the comment. This particular comment
should be taken in light of the parent and contains at least one error. It
shouldn't be used out of context as a point of controversy.
In this case the
parent of the comment thread:
Partial transcript of video
From
Jury Instructions 29 through 31 (Docket Item 1903) you might expect the jurors
were interpreting testimony in defense of patent infringement by arguments of
invalidity. Without exposure to testimony and exhibits it may be just as likely
that the jury foreman incorrectly recalled the patent number. If he didn't
perhaps Apple presented prior art as a defense. Apple did move for summary
judgement of non-infringement, including on the '460 patent. (This was denied
for the '460 patent or we wouldn't be left wondering).
From the
Docket we'd discover any applicable part of the record is sealed.
We may
never have the full story, both parties have striven to seal as much as
possible. Without the entire record it's unlikely any suppositions can lead to
accurate conclusions. Because Apple has won, it's unlikely we'll see various
bits of the record unsealed. We do on the other hand gain a greater
understanding of the case but find we need to rely on the experience of legal
professionals to understand what the blank spots mean. We can also still look
forward to transcripts of sessions in open court.
In general it's safe to
say we need a greater understanding of the case to interpret the jury foreman's
public comments, and if his comments contain errors we may not be able to follow
them from start to finish based on the record even if it were available.
I
don't know how anyone can get a better answer today than PJ without asking the
two jury members who spoke out in public for clarification. You could wonder if
that would actually be informative based on the difficulty we are having
interpreting what is already public, in part because so much of the record isn't
visible. When PJ is unsure she asks those legal professionals following the
case. That doesn't include me and I Am Not A Lawyer. Anyone with a clearer
understanding of the case is involved and likely can't speak to sealed evidence. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
