If you missed it, Apple was awarded an incredible victory over Samsung late last week when a jury ruled that dozens of Samsung phones infringed on Apple’s trade dress and patents. From your comments, it’s clear that many of you would have voted much differently. While none of us were on the jury we can finally hear from some of those that were, Vel Hogan (jury foreman during deliberations) sat down with Bloomberg for a 16 minute interview.

Most of what Vel reveals sounds reasonable, but we do take issue with his explanation as to why prior art was not used to invalidate Apple’s ’460 patent.

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.Vel HoganJury Foreman

A nice anecdote of how they came up with their decision, but it does not align with the definition of prior art in patent law:

Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.Prior Art definitionWikipedia

I certainly don’t have a legal background, but it sounds like the jury made a decision based on interpretations of the law which simply are not true. Do you think this bit of information from Vel Hogan is enough to help Samsung appeal at least part of the jury’s verdict? You can check out the full interview below and be sure to let us know your thoughts in the comments.