Yesterday Judge Koh issued the jury in the Apple vs Samsung patent trial with their final instructions before proceeding with closing arguments.
It was a gruelling process, with the jury instructions taking up a reported 109 pages and Judge Koh feeling it necessary to get the jury to stand up every now and then "to make sure we're still alive".
(Judge Koh's droll wit and eccentric manner have been a feature of the trial so far, perhaps livening up what has been an unrelenting barrage of technical and legal details.)
What else did the judge pass on to the harried and hard-working San Jose jury? Well, quite a lot. But we've condensed it down to these 5 bite-sized instruction-ettes.
1 Keep an open mind about 'expert' testimony
A lot of witnesses have been trotted out by both Apple and Samsung's legal teams to endorse their financial claims. But Judge Koh reminded jurors that they can accept or reject the experts' testimony. This follows earlier instruction that they should view proceedings through the eyes of "an ordinary observer". This case has been about 'common sense' findings as much as elaborate technical debate.
2 Consider whether products are 'substantially the same'…
This deceptively complex phrase describes what the jury must look for when considering whether Samsung infringed Apple patents.
3 …and whether Apple designs are 'obvious'
Is the 'rounded rectangle' an obvious design that would occur to anyone? This brings us back to the 'microwave oven argument' that says the shape of the iPhone is the logical shape that any smartphone designed would have arrived at eventually.
4 The dates by which the iPhone and iPad needed to have achieved 'fame'
Judge Koh reminded the jury that relevant Samsung launches were made on 15 July 2010 and 8 June 2011. Were the iPhone and iPad sufficiently famous by those dates? To those of us who are immersed in Apple technology on a day-to-day basis, the iPhone and iPad have been famous since they launched, but the important question here is the degree to which they had penetrated mainstream popular consciousness - to that ordinary observer again - by these dates.
Judge Koh also instructed jurors to consider whether Apple's products had made a visual impression on consumers and whether they had established a 'distinctiveness' before the Samsung products in question were launched.
5 You can look on the internet… but you can't download music
This case had been a punishing slog for the poor jury. But at least they're allowed to kill some time on the internet... Yes, the jury instructions included specifics about how they could use the Apple and Samsung devices in question, and this included permission to use the web browsers (presumably to examine the way they are designed rather than to check the score in the cricket). But the SIM cards have been removed from the devices (jurors must use the court's Wi-Fi), and they aren't allowed to download any apps, games or music, or perform any software updates.