Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the billion-dollar-voir-dire dept.

Patents 98

thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."

cancel ×

98 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Patent Sherrif (-1, Troll)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#41932911)

Hon. Koh: Ooowee! You shifty juror, they said you was hung?
Hogan: And they was right!

Re:Patent Sherrif (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933267)

They weren't hung, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff! Or should I say...

Hon. Koh: Ooowee, look at that star! Ooowee, Civil Service!

Re:Patent Sherrif (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41937381)

Is Blazing Saddles so adjudicated that none can conceive its laudable lavish confounded foolery?

Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chickens? (3, Insightful)

daboochmeister (914039) | about 2 years ago | (#41932913)

The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (3, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41932971)

So has Hurricane Sandy. Perception is not the issue.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (4, Funny)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41933001)

So has Hurricane Sandy. Perception is not the issue.

True but unlike an election or a hurricane, these patent lawsuits seem to last forever.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933055)

The election sadly seemed to last forever...

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#41934301)

The election sadly seemed to last forever...

Don't worry. The campaigns for the 2014 elections will be starting in 6 months.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | about 2 years ago | (#41934911)

Perception is not the issue.

Smoke is not the issue ... unless it indicates there's a fire. She blocked Samsung evidence in widely criticized ways, and on in some cases less than flimsy technicalities.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41935821)

in some cases less than flimsy technicalities.

Why would you have a problem with this? I'd be worried if she was using truly flimsy, or more than flimsy, technicalities.
 
Captcha: quashed

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about 2 years ago | (#41932993)

Not biased -- I'd say wrong here and there -- but wrong isn't the same as biased.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933045)

that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (5, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41934431)

I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...

The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):

Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933005)

So if having sued someone means you can't be on a jury, how about having been sued?
Is anyone in America eligible for jury duty anymore?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933031)

Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.

Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (5, Informative)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 2 years ago | (#41933529)

The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:

During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation. Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.

Emphasis mine.

I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert) [groklaw.net]

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.

Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#41933907)

Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.

Not true (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41934633)

Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.

From here [thomsonreuters.com] :

According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house."

That suit against Seagate was over breach of contract and fraud, not patents.

Re:Not true (2)

sortadan (786274) | about 2 years ago | (#41935901)

I think the point is that Seagate is a subsidiary of Samsung, and the "ah-ha moment" he talks about in that post trial interview where after he takes the role of making the case for Apple, may have been more like "ah-ha, I can get some revenge."

Re:Not true (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41936465)

I think the point is that Seagate is a subsidiary of Samsung, and the "ah-ha moment" he talks about in that post trial interview where after he takes the role of making the case for Apple, may have been more like "ah-ha, I can get some revenge."

Understood - I was simply correcting GP poster who believed since it was a patent case, you could presume bias in any other patent case. His premise was false, so his conclusion was invalid. It could still be true for other reasons, but not for that one.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41934243)

So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.

That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.

When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934693)

When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.

I would not even give them that much information. Say nothing unless you are actually in court. Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you. It almost never help you. Police can bring up things that you said but they are under no obligation to bring up how it was used in context or everything you said. Just the selected pieces and parts that fits their agenda.

http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police/ [lawiscool.com]

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41934721)

That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.

The juror's behavior amounts to this, while in voir dire for a rape crime.

Judge: "Have you or any one close to you ever been charged with a sex crime?"

Juror: "-sigh- I was charged with indecency for peeing in a dumpster behind a school when I was 19."

And then not mentioning the rape charges 5 years later...

When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.

The juror wasn't on trial nor was he being audited. He was being vetted as a juror. Not disclosing material information is a waste of everyone's time.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41937191)

Indeed and having filed a civil suit isn't going to get you arrested or charged elsewhere. The absolute worst case scenario for a juror disclosing something that the judge asks about is not being seated on that jury. The judge and the attorneys aren't going to be sanctioning jurors for having filed a civil suit. And even with previous crimes, those sentences and penalties have already been dealt with.

Unless somebody knows that they've not been tried for a criminal offense, there's absolutely no reason not to disclose everything that the judge is asking about or that you think might be relevant. You're encouraged to ask questions if you're not clear about what's being asked.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (4, Insightful)

Digicaf (48857) | about 2 years ago | (#41934739)

True, but that's the problem and the lie of omission.

If he had just said yes, then there could have been followup asking for full disclosure. But, since he said yes and then gave a followup immediately it would be natural for anyone to think that his followup was complete. Thus, he's guilty of omitting pertinent details that may have affected his standing.

Here's an example (only hypothetical):
Question: "Have you ever been arrested in Texas?"
My Answer: "Yes, I was detained for disorderly conduct but was acquitted"
Result: Most of the people hearing that would think that was all and go about their business.
The real story: The above is true, but I was also arrested for several other possibly relevant crimes.
What happens when they find out: a shit storm

Sure, the people doing the questioning failed to be exactly precise, but that doesn't mean I wasn't hiding something.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41935897)

If you are under oath in a courtroom, that's a completely legitimate answer. You're never supposed to assume anything. If you're asked a question like that you give them an answer. If the lawyer or judge is foolish enough to word it that way, they have no right to know the "real story" because they didn't ask, and you didn't withhold.

A good lawyer would ask "how many times have you been arrested?" "Please tell us the charges for each event in Texas"
Were you "did any go to trial?"
etc... in order to get a precise answer.

I Despise the Fandroid approach to all of this...People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse. The only reason it doesn't upset you t only because you want Android to be a success and you can't imagine success without copying Apple.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41939767)

People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse.

I'm torn on the Samsung issue. Motorola though, and FRAND? Apple was offered the chance to join the FRAND pool and get access for free if they would just cough up some of the patents they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness and said no. Then they wanted to get the same kind of pricing members of the pool get, and Motorola said no. That's somehow wrong? I think not.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934533)

"The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in... Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL."

Actually, there is the hurdle of timing that Samsung has to jump before even getting to the issue of whether Mr. Hogan misconducted himself.

Apple's response to Samsung's motion for a new trial was to state that Samsung knew or should have known of these issues (Hogan's lawsuit with Seagate and the subsequent bankruptcy) at the time of jury selection and should have made those objections at that time and since Samsung did not then they waived the right to make those objections.

In general, if you don't make objections in a timely manner then they are considered to be waived. The most notable exceptions to that are things like your constitutional rights, which can be invoked at any time even if previously waived. If the judge accepts Apple's contention that Samsung knew or should have known of these issues at the time of jury selection then it's seems likely that the judge will waive those objections for not being made in a timely manner.

Samsung definitely knew Mr. Hogan had been sued but I don't believe they knew that lawsuite involved Seagate. But the fact that they did not research the litigation Mr. Hogan mentioned I think is a fundamental failure on Samsung's part.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

egamma (572162) | about 2 years ago | (#41933573)

Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.

Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.

And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#41933629)

Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41934189)

Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate

Samsung didn't own any part of Seagate 19 years ago. And to be honest, if I had a dislike for a company (for example Seagate), and it then turns out the company makes bad business decisions, has to sell up, and someone gobbles up the remains, I wouldn't feel any anger against the new owners. If I was so interested in the company that I actually knew there were new owners.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#41936573)

Except in this case, Seagate bought up Samsung's HDD division. They bought it with Seagate shares.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#41933643)

Samsung is the Seagate's second largest shareholder.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933681)

1) Seagate completed an acquisition of the Samsung's HDD business in Dec 2011

2) Samsung is a major share-holder in Seagate (possibly as a result of the above)

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934333)

"And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?"

No, I read about Samsung filing a motion for a new trial and learned of its connection to Seagate then. A connection which several other posters have outlined so I won't restate it but suffice it to say that the judgement rendered from this case will affect Seagate by way of affecting Samsung. And Mr. Hogan having basically been bankrupted by Seagate hugely suggests he could not be relied upon for impartiality, his misapplication of the judge's charge to the jury notwithstanding.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41934827)

Having been a party in a similar (in nature) suit might tend to produce a strong bias.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41940309)

Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.

No it doesn't. BUT if the judge asks you if you have ever sued, or been sued, and you answer in the negative... When you have been sued, well that could be grounds for dismissal.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933135)

This is /. so you're not expected to RTFA (well, you're suppose to have missed it completely really), but from the TFA:

Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993.

So yeah, I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933485)

Yeah, it would have been nice if TFS had mentioned that the juror's patent lawsuit actually had some relevance, instead of just calling it a generic "status as a former patent case plaintiff".

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933609)

I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).

Is Samsung a licensee of Google's new patent on guilt-by-association?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933887)

But did he even know about that relationship? I sure didn't before this aspect of this case.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41933085)

The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.

Any improprietory or error Samsung (or Apple, for that matter) believes occurred in the trial court can be (and, rest assured, will be) raised on appeal. Until that, the trial court judge is responsible for the case.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933113)

Saying that someone has a bias without even offering a modicum of evidence is kinda of a smear. It's like if I said, "Some have people said that daboochmeister makes baseless accusations about people in order to discredit them". Oh wait...

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 2 years ago | (#41933209)

Kinda of a smear, eh? I'll make an allegation of illiteracy, and now I've got evidence.

Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933317)

This is the first I've heard of the judge being biased. So, "abounds" may not apply in this case.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934155)

The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):

Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (2)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41934425)

Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO.

Look, I'll agree she ran this trial like a "why can't we all just love Apple" circus. But when Apple issued it's IPO in 1980, Lucy (born in 1968) hadn't even hit puberty yet.


you know Occam's Razor, right

Something about 12 year old girls probably not holding large stock portfolios from clients of companies they'll work for 20 years later (2000-2002)?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41933815)

Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.

I'm sure you can provide a link to some of that evidence, since it's abounding all over the place?

Blocked Samsung's counterpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934231)

Blocked Samsung's counterpoint to late accusations from Apple, even though the submission from Samsung

a) couldn't have been put any earlier because that would require time travel to go back in time before Apple made the accusation

b) was within the limits of submission of evidence.

So, you were saying...?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933825)

How about providing one single fucking link of this so-called bias? Go on, I'll wait.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (2)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 years ago | (#41935355)

How about Samsung being sanctioned over email retention, despite retaining emails earlier than Apple, even though Apple knew early that legal action would ensue.

You want a link? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120729091631834 [groklaw.net]

Now, fuck off.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41956579)

I think you need to revisit that. While you are correct in your opinion, you are also half informed. ;)

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934159)

The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.

Uh, widely perceived as having a bias... by those with a bias?

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 2 years ago | (#41934751)

I'd still like to know the value of the Apple shares she owns (or as that's a sliding number atm, the amount she holds). Appears she worked for the company that handled Apple IP issues before, and received Apple stock. I think that shows a bias if true, so would like to know how much she holds.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41935687)

What? I have a feeling you're too young to understand what you just said, or you watch Fox news. If the judge was "widely thought to have a bias" ( and by that I think you mean a material bias since everyone has their own biases ) Samsung would have acted to get her dismissed or disbarred.
You personally and all of your friends who agree with you are the ones that think she has a bias.
She has shown a great amount of tolerance to both sides in this trial. Samsung in particular has gotten away with procedural mistakes that would have caused a normal individual to individual case to get immediately thrown out of court.

Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41938423)

jesus christ you are a fucking moron.

Samsung in particular has gotten away with procedural mistakes that would have caused a normal individual to individual case to get immediately thrown out of court

samsung the one being sued you mongoloid, they would have LOVED to get the case thrown out.

I have a feeling you're too young to understand what you just said

i have a feeling that the only thing you have going for you is your age

Why bother with this judge? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933029)

She's blocked Samsung's evidence on technicalities all the way through. Samsung should have taken this elsewhere, Koh has proved to be suspiciously in favor of Apple at every turn.

Samsung hasn't lost anything yet (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41933065)

Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple

Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.

Re:Samsung hasn't lost anything yet (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | about 2 years ago | (#41933119)

No mod points right now, but thanks for the clarification.

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#41933133)

Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple

Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.

Well, I suppose loosing a suit is better than being slapped with one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-02-25/ [dilbert.com]

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 2 years ago | (#41933323)

Loosing a suit is a very kind thing to do because it makes it easier for the wearer to breathe and is often much more comfortable. That is, unless you make the suit too loose and it becomes a pain to hold the pants up.

Re:Obligatory (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 2 years ago | (#41934135)

so that's why kids wear them around their ass cheeks these days? :D

Re:Obligatory (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41934849)

Loose a suit that much, and you might just lose it entirely.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933383)

I needed that done to mine as I gained weight.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41941333)

http://dilbert.com/fast/2008-02-25/
Dilbert without all the junk around the outside.

Not entirely true (3, Informative)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41933491)

The jury's verdict has been recorded. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable. Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented. These motions are hardly ever granted, and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.

Re:Not entirely true (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41934467)

Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.

Because the appellate court might not be on the take?

No (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41935049)

Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.

Re:No (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41938573)

Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.

However this is a good chance for the perhaps-not-so-honorable Lucy Koh to dig herself a little deeper into judicial doo-doo by failing to attempt any remedial action for the jury foreman's rather obvious transgressions.

Re:No (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41938933)

I think she might be able to get away with kicking the can down the road and letting the appellate court deal with it.

No, entirely true (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41936351)

The jury's verdict has been recorded.

Which is not the same thing as judgement being entered.

The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable.

True.

Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Well, that's the dictionary definition of a judgement as a matter of law, but the actual Samsung motion isn't a simple JMOL, it is, strictly speaking, a motion for a judgement as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur. The parts specifically seeking a JMOL as one of the alternative remedies necessarily -- because that's the standard for a JMOL -- argues that no result other than the judgement it seeks is proper under any reasonable view of the facts presented at trial. But the first part of that motion isn't seekign a JMOL with a new trial as an alternative remedy for the same error, its a straight-up request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, which isn't at all about what could be reasonably found based on the evidence presented, but arguing that jury misconduct warranting a new trial independently of what could or could not reasonably be concluded from the evidence presented at trial occurred and must result in a new trial unless one of the other elements of the motion supporting a JMOL is granted.

These motions are hardly ever granted

Which, if the granting of such motions were completely random, would justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung is likely to lose at trial, but still wouldn't justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung has already lost. Of course, granting of JMOL motions isn't random, so the overall frequency with which they are granted, standing on its own, doesn't even justify the "likely to lose" characterization, much less the "lost" characterization. Less abstractly, its worth noting that jurors hardly ever go bragging to the media about how they convinced the rest of the jury to use specific legal standards in coming to a verdict which were not the standards in the jury instructions after the verdict but before the process in the trial court is complete, which may have some significant relationship to the frequency with which motions of the type at issue here (motions for a new trial based on jury misconduct) are granted by trial courts.

and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct.

Of course they are. Any litigant in a case of any importance is looking beyond the trial court decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for prevailing on claims at appeal before the case even gets to the point of trial. That's just fundamental trial practice. And on some of the parts of the motion for judgement as a matter of law, new trial, or remittur that address a JMOL in the narrow sense (i.e., other than the remittitur claims or the new trial issue relating to juror misconduct), which largely address legal questions on which they the trial court has already sided with the other side at least once, they probably are primarily building an appellate record. OTOH, on the issues which have not yet been addressed by the trial court -- such as the jury misconduct issue -- there is no justification for the claim that they aren't primarily interested in getting a favorable ruling by the trial court.

Re:No, entirely true (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41938981)

I stand corrected - I did not read TFM, and obviously you did. If its not just a JMOL and includes a request for a new trial, Samsung would have a bit better chance based on the facts. I can't imagine the judge wants to put any more time into it though. From a logistics perspective, both sides are probably dealing with a very irritated judge by now.

Re:Not entirely true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41948645)

"

The jury's verdict has been recorded. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable. Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented. These motions are hardly ever granted, and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.

"

People hardly ever put ketchup on hot dogs, that cdoes not mean I won't meet someone who does tomorrow.

People don't go about espousing weird theories of prior art in jury deliberations, and then tell the press about it. People hardly ever lie about lawsuits during voir dire. People hardly ever say that they are indifferent to IP laws. then announce to the press they are happy to have a chance to uphold our IP laws.

More to the point. Judges hardly every grant juror misconduct motions and JMOL motions because jurors hardly ever give a reason to do so. Instead of arguing that judges hardly ever grants such motions. why not try to argue that judges hardly ever grant such motions when jurors do engage in misconduct or return inconsistent verdicts.

In other words, instead of presenting irrelevant bogus statistics, why don't you try some arguments of real substance.

Re:Samsung hasn't lost anything yet (1)

Guignol (159087) | about 2 years ago | (#41940913)

Thanks for those clarifications, it makes much more sense now
Some video footage of the whole mess [youtu.be] for people needing some more clarifications about the subtleties of this trial

Order (0)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41933077)

And order in the universe was (or will be) restored. Apple has a long and pathetic history of loosing lawsuits from both sides, a big victory like this left an imbalance that needed to be corrected.

Foreman (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 2 years ago | (#41933249)

Probably wanted to steal Apple's patented swipe-to-grill gesture.

Re:Foreman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41933533)

Yum, I'm going to patent that. It's first-to-file, so that means I invented it, right? I'm pretty sure I did.

Re:Foreman (1)

Qu4Z (1402097) | about 2 years ago | (#41954027)

I'm pretty sure prior art is still a thing even under first-to-file.

Like the next Grisham novel (2)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#41933583)

With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934117)

Hard to say.

The easiest explanation is that they're only human and can't possibly know everything about everyone exactly when they need it, especially with everything else going on.

Another explanation is that they're not good lawyers. Some of the other idiot mistakes they made leads me to this explanation.

The conspiracy theory explanation is that they knew, but chose to leave the juror in there as they could always get the judge to throw out any ruling made due to potential bias. If it went their way, fine, leave well enough alone. Otherwise, go on the attack.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934173)

Not all of them own iPhones, silly.

Oh oh! Wait wait, this one's better!

Because they're not Google, silly.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (4, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41934211)

If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41934271)

With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?

1. With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyer know the difference between an iPad and a Samsung tablet when held up in the air? (Very bad preparation and should never have happened to them).

2. With billions at stake, you would know all this and then use it, if convenient, if the case goes against you.

3. Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble? Most people who hated Seagate would be _happy_ for another company to buy them up.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934353)

Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years

Ha ha! Good one! You don't read slashdot much, do you? Just look at all the raving loonies that show up any time Sony is mentioned, for instance.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (3, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#41934901)

Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble?

Not necessarily, but by failing to disclose this he hid the fact not only that he might have an unlikely grudge, but that he'd been involved in patent litigation before and therefore would be drawing on all kinds of legal experience and legal information that:

a) may not be relevant today -- it was 20 years ago
b) may have him drawing on information that wasn't in -this- case.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41934731)

Why didn't Samsung know? You could ask the same question too Apple and then the follow up question, if Apple knew, why didn't they say anything?

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (1)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#41937151)

Why didn't Samsung know? You could ask the same question too Apple and then the follow up question, if Apple knew, why didn't they say anything?

Maybe Apple's lawyers knew and thought the fact favored their case. They have no responsibility to do the other side's job.

However, the error may cause vacation of the case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41941343)

In which case, Apple have done the other side's job: get the case thrown out.

Re:Like the next Grisham novel (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 2 years ago | (#41934801)

It's possible they did, but they're also asking did Apple know as well...

Dec 6th Not just about juror's failure to disclose (5, Informative)

Formorian (1111751) | about 2 years ago | (#41933831)

It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165 [groklaw.net]

"Apple vs. Samsung" happened 90 years ago (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 years ago | (#41933885)

I haven't followed much of this Apple vs. Samsung but this slide from a presentation caught my attention:

The Tube Business in the ’20s
[snip]
Tube Shops’ Challenges
Design around ~250 RCA triode patents
– Enormously difficult task (Samsung vs Apple case)
– RCA had shut down Sylvania’s tube business
– Ordering materials difficult (Corning in NY)
Hired locally (many hams); got resources from IT&T (French engineers)
– Eitel, Litton collaborated with each other (novel!)
– Based on friendships over the years
– Didn’t compete with other’s market
Worked closely with patent attorneys

paraphrase from other slides:
Eimac (Eitel, Litton) made tubes that work on VHF after WWII, RCA tubes did not work. Eimac sued RCA and GE. Let them buy Eimac products and resell them under their own names.

PDF of slides from which above info, http://www.cpmt.org/scv/meetings/cpmt1209l.html [cpmt.org]

Transcript of jury selection (5, Interesting)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41934127)

The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

Re:Transcript of jury selection (2, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41934595)

The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

Re:Transcript of jury selection (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41938193)

The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught [theinquirer.net]

Re:Transcript of jury selection (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#41934917)

To be honest, reading the transcript it sounds like both the juror and the court got derailed by the specifics of his answer and forgot to follow up with any other lawsuits he was involved in. An understandable mistake.

But if we follow the precedent Koh set by following the letter of the law and disallowing Samsung's evidence on a technicality, she's gonna have to dismiss this juror and hold a new trial on this technicality.

Meanwhile, Google is to be sued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41935305)

FTC staff have formally advised that the Federal government sue Google for anti-trust violations in its licensing of FRAND patents.

Member of the Apple Fanboi Club, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41936357)

A cursory search of the Internet reveals that Mr. Foreman is quite the fan of Apple products, and also has a long history, predating the case, of voicing public prejudice against Samsung.

He no doubt lied to get on the jury so he could push his own personal agenda.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?