Yup. The specific jury instructions regarding prior art are online[0]. They're pretty clear and pretty clearly contradict the foreman's interpretation of prior art.

[0] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

"Interchangeable code" wasn't the standard. In fact "interchangeable code" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. What would have invalidated Apple's patent was if the implementation in their patent was "sufficiently similar" to the prior art's implementation. They found that it wasn't, so the patent wasn't invalidated.

I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You cherry-picked one part of his answer that gives the impression that the only thing the jury did to determine if the patent is valid is to see if the code would run on other devices. It isn't, as is clear from the rest of his answer.

I'm not sure how you think this jury "made stuff up" because from his other answers, they seem to have had a much better understanding of the law and the facts than followers of this case have had.

I believe he was referring to this answer.

Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.

A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable."

"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."

Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what his conclusion is.