Ok, so let me get this straight. Samsung was found infriging on trivial patents, because they copied the entire look & feel? It does seem to me that what samsung did was more than a bit unethical (although I did not follow up enough to have a very good opinion), but the actual reasons why it was found infriging was something completely different? That makes no sense whatsoever. The jury foreman is defending a completely irrelevant thing to me.

That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.