quote: He said two pieces of evidence were crucial in persuading the jury that Samsung had intentionally copied elements of Apple's iPhone functionality: minutes of a meeting in South Korea with Google, which had warned senior Samsung executives to "pull back" from their tablet designs because they were too close to Apple's; and internal emails from Samsung executives which said that the difference between the iPhone and Samsung's smartphones was "heaven and earth", and that the two needed to be moved closer.
quote: He also denied there had been any "home court" advantage for Apple, despite the case being heard just 10 miles from its Cupertino headquarters. "I use no Apple equipment – I'm a PC person," Hogan said. "My wife has a Samsung phone, but it's not a smartphone." None of the jurors owned an iPhone, he said.
quote: A key piece of evidence that persuaded jurors that Samsung had copied Apple designs and function was the minutes of a meeting between Google and Samsung in Korea."Google demanded that they were too close to Apple, and needed to pull back, because they [Google] were worried about their tablet and their operating system, and that they should make their tablet less like Apple's. They [Samsung] chose not to pass that information down to the engineers about that product, so they [the engineers] went on not knowing.
quote: "Three of us had been through the process in our careers of dealing with financial documents. I understood the profit and loss statements as well as the other two. We looked against the matrix of information [provided by Samsung about sales of phones and revenues]. We decided the [gross margin of profitability] percentage wasn't 12% [as Samsung had claimed] or 35% [as Apple had claimed], but should be between 13% and 15% – so 14% became the magic number. We then did our own calculations for each of the [infringing devices], along with reasonable royalties for each of the numbers."Asked if such a complex case was really best heard by a jury, Hogan was certain. "Yes," he said. "While it was complicated, but any jury of our peers could have reached this decision. If we had been asking questions of the judge it would have taken longer, but at all times we were confident that we were moving in the right direction."
quote: 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.