Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman

Although the jury has delivered its verdict there are still two further hearings scheduled in the patent dispute to discuss device sales bans

This is the full text of the BBC's interview with Velvin Hogan, foreman of the jury in the recent Apple versus Samsung patent lawsuit.

The case resulted in the jury ruling that the iPhone-maker should be awarded $1.05bn (£665m) in damages, and the South Korean firm's claims of infringement rejected. The judge has scheduled further hearings and Samsung has said it intends to appeal.

An edited version of the conversation can be found here.

What was the crucial bit of evidence that made you give a verdict that was so decisive in Apple's favour rather than Samsung's?

What did you make of the evidence given in the court? Did you form opinions of the two companies from what both sides put on show?

A lot has been made about the original interview you gave to Reuters in which you said you wanted to make the award sufficiently high to be painful to Samsung, but not unreasonable. There has been concern raised by some people that that may have been prejudicial and the awards should have been based on the facts alone. I wonder if you would like to clarify that.

And to what extent were you aware that because it was wilful, that the judge could now treble the damages, or was that not a concern?

There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: Whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that some of the patents that Apple had put forward shouldn't be allowed to stand? There has been a lot made in the media and elsewhere that Apple wasn't the first with some of the ideas that they had patented.

There had been a lot of speculation that although Apple might get damages, Samsung might get damages as well. Why did Samsung's case fail?

And we're talking about Samsung's patent claim about combining a mobile phone with email [and a camera]?

Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?

A lot has been made of the speed that you came to a verdict. Bearing in mind the instructions were, I think, about 109 pages long...

A lot has been made that a couple had to be sent back [to the jury]?

So just to be clear, this was a transcription error rather than a error of judgement.

Looking at the bigger picture, going forward do you have a concern that this case and the verdict given could encourage further patent litigation?

And personally, do you think it is broken and sick and needs reform?

Stepping outside the legal process do you think for the health of the industry that this was the right verdict, or do you think people should look at what has happened here and maybe rewrite the rules?

Samsung has suggested if the verdict is allowed to stand it would be hugely damaging to consumers. What do you make of that statement?

You said earlier that one of the killer punches for you was the Google meeting with Samsung. A lot has been made of the idea that Apple may have ultimately been gunning for Android rather than just specifically for Samsung. Do you think this verdict will have implications for other companies who use Android?

A lot of people have said this case happened in Apple's backyard, what else would you expect? I wonder if you would like to address that.

Mr Hogan asked that it be reported that he had not requested any money for any of the interviews he had given.