Ok, many have these quotes have been previously picked apart, so I'm going to focus on one particular one. Please, do not mistake this as a commentary on patent infringement, but rather the sheer inanity of some of these jurors' statements:<p>"There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance.... Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there."<p>Nokia and BlackBerry are hemorrhaging money. They are dying. They are proof that alternatives are <i>not</i> out there. I am not claiming this allows patent infringement (nor am I saying whether infringement occurred) but that was a simply ridiculous statement.<p>Additionally, the fact that "One of the jurors, believed to be Peter Catherwood, is a project manager with AT&T" presents a huge issue to me. The carriers are incredibly staked in mobile phones, and AT&T is a greatly invested in iPhone's success--their Android selection is poor. How can no one who reviewed this jury have said "maybe we shouldn't have a manager from AT&T"?<p>Finally: "Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."<p>I've already seen a number of people criticize the foreman's leadership, but I'll add. The plural of anecdote is not evidence, let alone the singular form. He was not an expert witness. How can we know whether false or misleading statements by the jury foreman didn't redefine prior art?<p>This whole trial is ridiculous.