Apple vs. Samsung: No South Korean verdict, higher juror pay

Apple and Samsung squabble on
The source of the legal bickering? Patents, patents, patents

Two new tidbits are hitting the airwaves related to the ongoing legal squabbles between Apple and Samsung.

In the first news item, the South Korean version of the Apple vs. Samsung case was expected to produce a ruling on both of its lawsuits – Apple vs. Samsung and Samsung vs. Apple – by Friday morning.

That's not happening, however: The South Korean court has delayed the ruling for "procedural reasons," which leads many pundits to believe that the court is actually pausing to watch for the outcome the U.S. version of the trial – held in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California – and possibly the Australian version of the companies' global patent battle before proceeding forward.

As reported by Slashgear's Chris Davies, the court hasn't elaborated on why the postponement was issued, how long it might run for, or any other details related to the delay.

Courtroom costs

That said, the stakes for the Apple versus Samsung battle in South Korea are a bit lower versus the United States version of the trial – just Apple vs. Samsung there, we note, a name that was itself an issue of contention between the companies at one point during the U.S. version of the patent war.

Damages for the South Korean version of the trial are expected to hit around $90,000 for each company, depending on how the cases play out.

In the United States, however, Apple's pushing for a payout of approximately $2.5 billion from Samsung.

Paying the deciders

Even with all this money on the table, there's one place where large payouts certainly aren't going: To the pockets of the nine jurors assigned to the case.

As Ina Fried from AllThingsD puts it, the jurors – who were just recently given a bump in pay from $40 per day for their services to $50 (for each day beyond 10 days) – are still "woefully underpaid" for their work.

"Not only are they being asked to evaluate whether patents are being infringed, they are also being asked to ascertain whether they should have been granted in the first place, essentially becoming underpaid patent-office employees in addition to poorly compensated jurists," she writes.

That's presuming, of course, that none of the seven men and two women stuck on the case don't ultimately translate their (riveting) experience through patent-land into a tell-all book after the fact.

Testimony in the U.S. continues Friday morning.

Via Slashgear and AllThingsD