×

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!

Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the couldn't-keep-quiet dept.

Android 208

sfcrazy writes "Samsung is clearly accusing Hogan in its recent filing of influencing the jury in favor of Apple. Samsung said in its filing: 'Mr. Hogan's own statements to the media suffice if such a showing is required. Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together. Contrary to this Court's instructions, he told other jurors incorrectly that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is "entirely different"; that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was "interchangeable"; and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use. He thus failed "to listen to the evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, [and] to follow the judge's instructions."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

Samsung's accusations (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980307)

They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.

Re:Samsung's accusations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980375)

If the appeal is successful and the case has to go to trial again then you can bet all the apple fanbois will start to declare that hogan was a samsung plant and that this was their plan all along...

They already said it in the last /. thread. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980601)

Too late, they've done it already.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Insightful)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982143)

Why would Samsung go through the effort of setting up this farce when they could just as easily have won the case outright had the jury not been rigged? That makes no sense.

Re:Samsung's accusations (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980387)

He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

Re:Samsung's accusations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980497)

When there's a billion dollar verdict riding on making him appear like a scumbag, don't be surprised if they try to paint him in as negative of a light as possible.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Insightful)

jlv (5619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981189)

Especially if it's true about him!

Give me a break already... I own a Galaxy Nexus. It's bogus for Apple to claim this is a copy of an iPhone.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980507)

He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

Samsung is not claiming he didn't disclose his patent. They are claiming he was pro-patent in a crooked sort of way, by his own admission.

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system.

Re:Samsung's accusations (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980475)

Samsung alleges lots of things, as you would do if a court decided that you should pay more than a million dollars. However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

I think it was known to Samsung that he was a patent other. Being a patent owner doesn't make him pro-patent, and if he was, then Samsung didn't ask him about it.

The claim that he has a grudge against Samsung because of something that happened 19 years ago with another company is just ridiculous. Of course, it is a claim that I would make if I were Samsung's lawyer after losing a $1bn court case, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that Hogan was even aware of a connection between Samsung and Seagate. And if he was aware of it, I can't see any evidence that he had a grudge against Seagate - most people would have a grudge against the people responsible (which he knew). And even if he had a grudge against Seagate, held for 19 years (which I would consider abnormal), I can't see any evidence why that grudge would extend to someone doing business with Seagate.

Re:Samsung's accusations (4, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980525)

The issue is thus:

a) did not disclose fully the extent of his patent dealings, referenced one more recent issue but failed to disclose the more serious prior issues

b) provided false, misleading evidence contrary to judges instructions to manipulate the jury

c) had prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung

d) was a flat out stupid moron (the latter doesn't affect the case decision, but the first three very much do so)

Re:Samsung's accusations (1, Interesting)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981059)

"provided false, misleading evidence" shows you don't know what those words mean.
"prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung" years before it was a subsidiary of Samsung.

If you want him to be completely honest, at least do the same thing.

Re:Samsung's accusations (2)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981431)

"prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung" years before it was a subsidiary of Samsung.

So what's your point? You think when this subsidiary became a part of Samsung the dude just thought, "oh well, they're owned by a different company now; I'll just let it go."

--Jeremy

Re:Samsung's accusations (3, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981911)

1. Years before it was a subsidiary doesn't in any way negate holding a grudge.

2. Well, he stated aspects of patents & prior art. Put forth to the jury "expert testimony", which I do consider evidence. While I am sure lawyers would have a bazillion terms to denote nuances. I think in layman's term the use of evidence was a fine term.

Re:Samsung's accusations (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982041)

I think a layman would consider evidence to only be what was presented in court, in front of the judge, jury, plaintiff, and defendant.

Re:Samsung's accusations (2)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982227)

Fair enough. What then would a layman call "introduction of testimony from experience(s) outside of the trial to the jury, to directly affect the outcome of the jury's decision" and does that term change if the person responsible for this is the jury foreman?

Re:Samsung's accusations (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982299)

Laymen don't have a clue about technology issues, and will go with whoever seems most confident in what they're saying. Put somebody like that, especially somebody like that who doesn't have a clue what the hell he's talking about (seriously, prior art doesn't matter unless it's an exact match and is still in use today?!?), and that person will very definitely influence the outcome of a deliberation.

Re:Samsung's accusations (-1, Troll)

mybecq (131456) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981069)

a) did not disclose fully the extent of his patent dealings, referenced one more recent issue but failed to disclose the more serious prior issues

Which he was not required to, since it was more than 10 years prior [bloomberg.com] , as per the (claimed) court instructions.

b) provided false, misleading evidence contrary to judges instructions to manipulate the jury

Something like this is the one that the appeal will most likely rest upon.

c) had prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung

Which Samsung's lawyer's didn't enquire after?

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Interesting)

BeeRockxs (782462) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981119)

The court instructions are available online, and say nothing about more than 10 years. He's been lying to the press, too.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Informative)

iapetus (24050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981137)

There were no such court instructions. The 10 years claim has been thoroughly debunked. Three cheers for transcripts!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725 [groklaw.net]

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. 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?

Re:Samsung's accusations (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41982049)

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. 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?

To which he responded YES. Samesung had that opportunity to dismiss the Juror right there and they didn't. CASE CLOSED.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980557)

However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

Please do not spout such bullshit. The judge asked everyone if they were EVER involved in any prior litigation. Hogan half-assedly replied that he was involved in 1 litigation; but conveniently and untruthfully left out the Seagate litigation. He claimed in an interview that he did not mention the Seagate litigation because it was more than 10 years past; and that the judge specified a 10-year past limit.

Of course, Hogan was lying through his teeth, and deserves to get booted out; and pay for the cost of the retrial.

Re:Samsung's accusations (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981359)

He deserves a metric fuckton more than that.

He lied through his teeth UNDER OATH, and that is perjury.

I hope Samsung presses criminal charges.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981731)

In the US legal system, individuals do not press criminal charges. Only the state (via the Attorneys General) can do that.

When a victim chooses "not to press charges" what they are really doing is refusing to testify against the suspect. The state still has full discretion as to whether charges will be pressed. Charges are often dropped because the victim's testimony is a large portion of the case.

Re:Samsung's accusations (4, Informative)

iapetus (24050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980559)

You need to read Samsung's reply, which is in the Groklaw article linked from the page. It answers all your points, and does it in a clear and definitive way. It also makes clear a lot of their other arguments, which you conveniently ignore here; that he indisputably failed to follow the judge's instructions, introducing inaccurate 'expert testimony' of his own that was wrong on just about every point of law that the jury ruled on. It's indisputable because he's been running his mouth off about it ever since.

Re:Samsung's accusations (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980693)

You need to read Samsung's reply, which is in the Groklaw article linked from the page.

you're such an idealist! rtfa? that would be a miracle as such :)

Like, why do people blab? (2)

Latent Heat (558884) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981299)

Dunno. If I were on a jury, I don't think I would try to call attention to myself.

Forget about any legal exposure. Does South Korea have a "Mafia"? I don't think I would want to find out.

Everyone around here seems to play up the Samsumg complaining about sour grapes angle. I want to play up the "just keep one's (fine, fine) mouth shut" angle, especially as a juror post jury trial.

Re:Like, why do people blab? (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981551)

Dunno. If I were on a jury, I don't think I would try to call attention to myself.

Forget about any legal exposure. Does South Korea have a "Mafia"? I don't think I would want to find out.

Everyone around here seems to play up the Samsumg complaining about sour grapes angle. I want to play up the "just keep one's (fine, fine) mouth shut" angle, especially as a juror post jury trial.

I mostly agree, though the mafia bit is a touch too paranoid even for someone who's paranoid like myself.

Anyway, here's what Samsung said about it, emphasis added:

Mr. Hogan’s explanations for his answers are not “plausible,” Dyer, 151 F.3d at 975, and he was not “indifferent to service on the jury,” id. at 982. An “individual who lies in order to improve his chances of service has too much of a stake in the matter to be considered indifferent.” Id. Mr. Hogan’s own press statements make clear he was just such an individual. “Whether the desire to serve is motivated by an overactive sense of civic duty, by a desire to avenge past wrongs,

2
by the hope of writing a memoir or by some other unknown motive, this excess of zeal introduces the kind of unpredictable factor into the jury room that the doctrine of implied bias is meant to keep out.”

Re:Samsung's accusations (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982209)

Yup. In fact, one of the citations in it quoted some ruling that answering a question in part, but leaving out the parts that you know are likely to lead to qualification, is EXACTLY the sort of thing that constitutes serious juror misconduct.

Re:Samsung's accusations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981701)

Samsung alleges lots of things, as you would do if a court decided that you should pay more than a million dollars. However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

I think it was known to Samsung that he was a patent other. Being a patent owner doesn't make him pro-patent, and if he was, then Samsung didn't ask him about it.

The claim that he has a grudge against Samsung because of something that happened 19 years ago with another company is just ridiculous. Of course, it is a claim that I would make if I were Samsung's lawyer after losing a $1bn court case, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that Hogan was even aware of a connection between Samsung and Seagate. And if he was aware of it, I can't see any evidence that he had a grudge against Seagate - most people would have a grudge against the people responsible (which he knew). And even if he had a grudge against Seagate, held for 19 years (which I would consider abnormal), I can't see any evidence why that grudge would extend to someone doing business with Seagate.

That something was suing for fraud and resulted him in losing his house and declaring bankruptcy. Would you ever forget it if a company ripped you off and made you lose everything? And that company is mostly owned by Samsung. It is not just someone who is doing business with them.

The judge asked him to declare *any* litigation that he was involved in. He didn't declare this. He certainly didn't tell the whole truth, which I imagine was part of the oath he swore before answering the judge's questions.

Re:Samsung's accusations (5, Funny)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980573)

They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.

Well folks, there you have it. The hidden dangers of old grunge; my mother always said it's Satan's music.

Re:Samsung's accusations (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980691)

They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung

He also smells like teen spirit.

Re:Samsung's accusations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980785)

They also allege that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung...

Oh, I didn't know he was from Seattle...

Well duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980313)

The man is an utter fool, and pretty much guaranteed a mistrial. He should be forced to pay costs.

Re:Well duh (4, Interesting)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980381)

I dunno about paying costs, that would leave him in RIAA-style life long debt. But a reasonable contempt of court fine could be justified -- though I don't know if that is legal. In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing, but in this case it seems to have swung the other way completely (assuming Samsung's accusations are true).

Re:Well duh (4, Interesting)

michalk (750517) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980485)

When this happened, I was mulling over my position on jury nullification, and came to the conclusion that it is an important tool as a limit on state power. However, in a civil case it gets a lot more difficult. We need a stable set of rules so we know where the boundaries are, otherwise we are no better than a third world country where graft is the norm. The problem is now that civil damages exceed what criminal damages can do to an individual, where do we draw the line? Do we say Jury nullification is okay to be used when excessive damages are awarded for file sharing? Okay, then why is that different than patent infringement? I like jury nullification. Unfortunately every time I've been in voir dire, and admitted to the ability to use it, I've been thrown out. For jury nullification to be a valid defense against the state (and corporation too?), it must be used properly. It doesn't feel to me like it was used properly in the Samsung/Apple case.

Re:Well duh (3, Insightful)

CrankyFool (680025) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980585)

One way you could look at this that at least feels consistent to me is that jury nullification should work in only one direction. If we still feel comfortable with the idea that "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail," then criminally we should only use jury nullification to err on the side of a lesser punishment and, if we want to use the concept of jury nullification for civil trials (and, certainly, the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits incline me to do so), we should also only use jury nullification to lower but not increase damages.

If we were to use that logic, in this case it'd mean that we'd be erring on the side of letting Samsung off, because "'rounded corners' is a stupid patent."

Nullification is the solution to nullification (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980711)

IMHO an interesting factor here is that we're talking about one (possibly dishonest) fuckwit. What about the other eleven jurors? Part of the reason for an independent jury is to be able to stand up to the government (I agree!) but another reason for a jury is that it is multiple people, so like elections themselves, fringes should get marginalized. If a judge has a bad day there is no check against that except (maybe!) appeals. If a juror has a bad day, there are supposedly eleven checks against that.

I like the idea of eleven checks. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

That didn't happen here; one fringe dude is alleged to have magically taken over. I realize it's not magic (people are easily manipulated) but you've got to have some faith in people's resistance to that, or else there's no point to juries at all (nor is there a point to democracy itself!).

I think the bigger strategic lesson here isn't to so quickly turn against democracy or jury nullification, but rather, we really need to do a better job of teaching people to tell other people "fuck you." No, really.

Or to put it another way (and look at the guy in the best light), one juror who believed in nullification, blew off the statutes and did what he thought was best to promote the cause of justice (in his sick twisted sense, but hey, we all are like that in some ways). But eleven other jurors did not believe in justice, and wanted to uphold statutes instead. This one guy, through lying, was able to make them think they were successfully doing that, even if maybe it went against their sense of right and wrong. If they had also believed in nullification and had been working for justice (their sense of it) too, then the lone defector and his lies would have mattered much less.

Re:Nullification is the solution to nullification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981101)

So, what you're saying is that Samsung was wrong, and eleven other people agreed with the fuckwit?

That's unpossible!

Re:Well duh (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980819)

The nice part about Jury Nullification is that you don't need to draw the line. By definition, it's invoked at a trial when the specifics are put into play, so there's no need for generalized guidelines since you're already sweating the details when you get there.

Re:Well duh (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980763)

In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing...

Don't get confused about this. This has nothing to do with "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a very specific and very limited situation. It is your right not to give a criminal conviction to a person who you believe is actually guilty according to the law or who you are told is guilty by the judge. In other words, it is that you can't be forced to give a guilty verdict which you would consider to be deeply morally wrong.

This doesn't give the jury the right to decide anything they want. For example, in a criminal trial you can give a not guilty verdict even if you think the person probably did break the law. You cannot, however, give a guilty verdict if you think the person didn't do the crime but probably did something else bad.

In a civil trial, the jury should only decide what they think is most likely to be true. There's no opportunity for jury nullification since there's no guilty verdict available at all.

Re:Well duh (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980949)

To hell with contempt of court.

How about perjury charges?

Re:Well duh (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981121)

Apparently you're not aware that jury oath does NOT require him to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help him, God?

Re:Well duh (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981581)

How does god come into this? Does it mean an atheist can legally lie to the court?

Re:Well duh (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981923)

"You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God" is the saying.

Re:Well duh (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982269)

But if you don't take that oath does it in any way relieve you of your obligation to tell the truth in court? Probably not.

Re:Well duh (5, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980403)

The man is an utter fool

Duh, he couldn't even get out of Jury duty.

Re:Well duh (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980673)

next time I get called in, I will waste no time with the stupid voire dire. I'll just hand them a card that says 'no, I won't blindly follow any judge's instructions, I vote my concience and I fully support jury nullification.'

I bet I'll be allowed to leave in 5 minutes flat.

(I'd prefer to be allowed to use JN but they won't allow it, sigh)

Re:Well duh (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980787)

Repeat: 'I refuse, on religious grounds, to stand in judgement of anyone.'

The best thing about that: if the judge so much as say boo, you have a federal civil rights lawsuit against the county/state.

Re:Well duh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981131)

Or you could, you know, DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY and not try to get out of jury duty.

Tired of "idiots" on juries? Serve on one yourself.

Re:Well duh (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981443)

They won't impanel me anyhow. Lawyers hate engineers on Juries.

Besides which, if they want my time, they can pay for it. Same as they pay for the prosecutor, bailiff and judge's time.

Re:Well duh (2)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981979)

They won't impanel me anyhow. Lawyers hate engineers on Juries.

Anyway, I believe Velvin Hogan is an engineer - Samsung might not be regretting having him there (now), although it could be argued things would've turned out much better if they had someone smarter.

The famous (in these parts) Terry Childs (SF Network Admin) trial that had an engineer [slashdot.org] on it, and he posted on Slashdot about it [slashdot.org] . He seemed a few degrees smarter than Hogan.

Besides which, if they want my time, they can pay for it. Same as they pay for the prosecutor, bailiff and judge's time.

Well, if that's your opinion of civic duty maybe you should be taxed more to pay for jurors' to be impaneled, seeing as you're too (valuable|precious|...).

Re:Well duh (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980533)

Said the Anonymous Coward. Another classic, sensational Anonymous Coward comment. Let this serve as an example, as if we needed more.

Not so Fast (3, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980439)

IANAL, but I believe that a lot of what Hogan has said during post-trial interviews cannot actually be submitted to court as evidence? Or at least, the Judge can't use his statements to influence her decision on what to do with him. Can anyone clarify on this?

The stuff about him being sued by Seagate is definitely grounds for a mistrial, though.

Re:Not so Fast (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980543)

Why not?

Re:Not so Fast (1)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980565)

Something about how what goes on in the Jury room is sacred and nobody's supposed to know about it to remain impartial or something?

Re:Not so Fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980775)

Yes, but when he talked to the press, he wasn't in the jury room. Those statements are admissible. He was a stupid fame whore and dug his own hole.

I'm not sure if this is perjury or contempt, but lying to the court isn't legal.

Re:Not so Fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980813)

Pretty sure him shooting off his mouth about it once he left invalidates that.

Re:Not so Fast (4, Informative)

reimero (194707) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980897)

Actually, juror statements after the fact CAN be called into question. While the Court and the litigating parties have no direct sway over what happens inside the deliberation chambers, if the jurors go on public record after the fact, that may cause grounds for further examination of the verdict. It's more accurate to say, what happens in the jury room may only be revealed by the jurors themselves - which they did, in this case. What makes this situation ironic is that Hogan blabbed about it and wouldn't shut up. Had his ego not demanded he talk to the press about it - a lot - and that he stand on his soapbox, Samsung would have had a far weaker argument of juror misconduct.

The bar for proving juror misconduct is very high, and lawyers are usually reluctant to play that card. By going on the record to the media, Hogan is making Samsung's case much, much easier.

Re:Not so Fast (2)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980973)

I was hoping that someone would say that and that's good to know. I think anyone paying attention to this case can see it's clearly juror misconduct, but knowing that it's hard to prove is worrying.

Vermin Hogan? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980461)

Some of the statements he made after the trial, he seemed to be enjoying the limelight until he realised what a hole he was digging and seemed to shut up. I was mind-blown.

He actually seemed proud, of the fact that he was able to convince the other jurors that they could ignore the "prior art" arguments because they were "bogging us down".

He stated very matter of factly, that the trial was over from day one when Apple presented their "smoking gun" which, in fact, turned out to be quite the opposite to anybody who actually READS the thing now that the unredacted documents are available, and didn't just look at Apple's cherry-picking and assumption leaping.

He ignored the judge's instructions as to how to calculate the award amount (and seemed quite proud of the 'punishment' he awarded (paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to look it up): "I approached it by thinking, what if these were MY patents", and "so we made an appropriately painful award").

The award amount itself was sent back to the jury room how many times, because they couldn't do simple arithmetic (and such was their hurry to get out of there, they awarded a few tens of millions even for things they said DIDN'T infringe).

The whole trial was a farce... Declaring mistrials is very uncommon but this travesty needs to be one of the exceptions.

Re:Vermin Hogan? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980937)

The "bogging us down" referred to skipping over issues they couldn't decide on and coming back to them later after they found out what they agreed on. There's nothing wrong with going over everything first and setting aside what's agreed on. Stop parroting what others have said just because they're on your team.

Re:Vermin Hogan? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981243)

If there had to be a person with a vendetta against a major producer of technology and by proxy, an open source operating system that in my view is really improving the mobile experience over what apple and MS would have given us, we should be grateful it was such a fucking moron that he may have sabotaged himself. By opening his big stupid mouth, he lessened the chances that we'd be stuck in the future choosing between an overpriced iphone and whatever windows and nokia have to offer.

Very curiously... (5, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980465)

it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange... looks like Apple could get hoisted by their own petard... and rightfully so!

Re:Very curiously... (-1, Troll)

wzinc (612701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981097)

Then what damages does Apple deserve for what Samsung did?

Should it be ok for one company to do this to another?

http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone/ [bgr.com]

I'd be angry if some company did that to me. Google warned them:

http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/ [allthingsd.com]

What justifies, "and rightfully so?"

Re:Very curiously... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981515)

they deserve a big mac with medium wedgies and a pepsi.

nothing in it is deserving protection, given all devices done prior to it.

Re:Very curiously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41982039)

aren't the big mac and pepsi punishment enough?

you should know that a 'wedgie' in the UK is not the same as a wedge

Re:Very curiously... (4, Insightful)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981835)

Then what damages does Apple deserve for what Samsung did?

Should it be ok for one company to do this to another?

None. And yes, it should be okay.

Did you actually read the memo? It looked like UI design 101, they just happened to (unfortunately) use the iPhone as the example of how it could be done right.
It had such amazingly original nuggets such as:
- increase the size of the daily schedule to make it legible
- Don't allow duplicate icons to be placed on the home screen
- Don't allow the keyboard to overlap the text entry screen
- Reduce the number of steps required to toggle Wi-Fi

These are the basis of a patent?

Re:Very curiously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981881)

I love it when that slideshow's trotted out as the ultimate proof.

Did you actually read through it? I mean, first slide tells Samsung engineers to copy Apple's innovative idea of rotating UI to match phone orientation, other slides guide them to steal such features as "sizing fields so that on-screen keyboard doesn't overlap them", "showing number of open tabs on tab switch icon" and "making colors on mail message number notification icon brighter for better readability".

Or maybe they're just expert opinion showing flaws in current UI, comparing them to a better UI - yes, Apple has better UI and giving directions to improve. Given that advice doesn't call to make it like Apple, but gives general description of possible improvements, that smoking gun is not so very smoking and gun-like.

Re:Very curiously... (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982167)

Well considering how almost all of the iPhone copied Palm, Prada and others...

How much do you think Apple should be paying Palm right now?

Re:Very curiously... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981309)

it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange...

Not strange at all... Apple isn't claiming Hogan is biased, so they have no need to provide evidence of when they had knowledge about his past activities, since that knowledge is irrelevant, as far as their claims are concerned. On the contrary, Samsung is claiming Hogan is biased, and if they knew about his past activities before trial and waited to play it as a card if they lost, then that may mean that they've waived the opportunity to bring it up now.

Or, to put it another way - if (A) either party knew about Hogan's past lawsuit before trial, then (B) that party can't claim he's biased because of it. If the party isn't claiming that (!B), then it's irrelevant whether they knew (A or !A).

Re:Very curiously... (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981975)

Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.

Re:Very curiously... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982305)

Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.

Not at all... If Apple doesn't think Hogan is biased, then they had no duty to mention the suit. Furthermore, Apple has no duty to presume that Samsung would find him biased and mention it. That's Samsung's job, and if Apple were making assumptions for them, we'd be rightly outraged. Apple can only act in their own name, and if they didn't think his Seagate suit biased him, then they had no reason to raise it.

Re:Very curiously... (3, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982151)

Actually, my understanding was that after the case was over, and names of jurors were out in the public. The spouse of a lawyer recognized his name from a prior case. And that's what triggered the revelation...

So not sure how that wasn't answered?

Foreman Hogan?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980479)

Wait, George Foreman and Hulk Hogan have been made into a Composite abomination of some kind?

Are they trying to sell the George Foreman and Hulk Hogan Combination Grill and Hair dryer or something?

Slashdotter? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980493)

Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together.

So, he talked out of his ass.

He must be a regular here on Slashdot! And he probably has karma out the Yin Yang to boot!

What the Samsung lawyers should have said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980505)

WHAT IS THIS MAN DOING HERE?

You've convinced me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980567)

I want Samsung to come up victorious . . . finally.

Because you're going to keep rehashing and spinning this shit every time there's another minute update until and even after anything happens.

Can we stop covering Apple like we're fucking gizmodo? It's like reading Faux News.

Let's start a whitehouse petition for the apple stories to secede from /.

Who IS a lawyer here? (4, Interesting)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980621)

We need some real answers, not AC speculation.

1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?
2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?
3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980893)

Samsung's Laywers only knew as much about the Jurors as the Jurors themselves disclosed. Any further investigation of the Jurors could be considered jury tampering. More importantly, the Jury's actions are only protected if they are taken within the law. If a juror's actions are illegal, they have no protection.

Now, in this case I don't think that the Foreman's actions were necessarily illegal, and as such I doubt he can be prosecuted or sued for them, but they do raise a number of questions about the propriety of the verdict and damage award. My guess is that there are two things that could result from this:

1) The verdict could be overturned and a new trial ordered. At this point, the jury is irrevocably tainted and replacing the foreman with an alternate and re-deliberating is just not an option.
2) The foreman may be held in contempt by the judge - I'm not sure what legal grounds the judge actually has to do this, but I know that if the case ends up having to be retried because of the foreman's actions, it will SERIOUSLY piss off the judge. And if there's one thing you DON'T want to do, it's piss off a judge in their own courtroom.

I suspect that the verdict will be overturned, as it's becoming clear that there are compelling arguments that the law was not followed, and thus allowing it to stand will weaken the judicial system as a whole. What would be interesting is if the judge decides somehow that Apple should have known that the foreman was tainted and withheld that information from the court, and as a result the judge decides to not only overturn the verdict, but reverse it and find in favor of Samsung. I doubt that would stand up to an appeal though, so I expect that won't happen, but you never know...

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (1)

ickpoo (454860) | about a year and a half ago | (#41980907)

This is the part that I don't get either. Even with him lying, why did even even get in the jury? It really seems that Samsung should have researched him entirely.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41980967)

1. They're not supposed to treat jurors like witnesses. Not allowed in any court, or actually possible in reality. Yes, and Hogan lied when answering them.

2. Lying during voir dire is not protected, ever. Statements made to the press by the juror after the trial are not protected.

3. No, but that's not one of the issues.

A lie of omission is still a lie. If a judge asks a defendant if they've ever been convicted and they reveal a traffic ticket but don't reveal an armed robbery conviction, it's a lie. Hogan did a similar thing, described a lawsuit with an employee while leaving out a lawsuit against company owned by Samsung after which he had to file bankruptcy and lost his house.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (5, Informative)

reimero (194707) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981173)

I'm not a lawyer, but Groklaw answers a fair amount of this. I've also sat on a jury before, if that makes any difference.
1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.
2. "Protected" is a complicated word. Basically, the Court issues instructions to the jury, and trusts that the jury will abide by those instructions. It requires an extraordinary level to prove that a jury acted outside the bounds of the Court's instructions. It's one thing if the jury's verdict doesn't jive with what the Court thinks it should be. It is another matter entirely when there is evidence of willful misconduct by a juror. Basically, if it can be demonstrated that a juror was willfully disregarding jury instructions or otherwise was acting as an "interested party", that juror could face sanction from the court, including the possibility of having to pay at least some of the costs. It essentially comes down to jury tampering. The bar for proving this is very high, but a juror's own words after the trial can be used against him or her.
3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981361)

1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.

But, contrary to what an AC said above, Samsung was certainly entitled to research the juror, and certainly due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit.
The bigger question here was whether Samsung did that research, and whether they knew about the Seagate suit pre-trial. If they did, and they sat on that information in case of a losing verdict, then they may have waived any opportunity to bring it up now... unlike the movies, you don't get to keep cards up your sleeves in litigation.

3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.

Only if Apple actually thought it was bias. If they looked at it and reasonably said "meh, he doesn't seem biased," then they have no obligation to bring it up (if they were engaging in willful blindness, that's different).

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (4, Informative)

Jerry Atrick (2461566) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981737)

"due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit"
 
...which doesn't work very well if the case records are no longer available to be found, as Samsung point out in their filings. The only reason anyone knows about the Seagate case is one lawyers personal recollection and Hogan incriminating himself, both occurring after the trial.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41982111)

If the records are that old that the Courts see no reason of keeping them around. Then they have no bearing on a current case.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (2)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981357)

We need some real answers, not AC speculation.

1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?

2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?

3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?

A couple things from Samsung's submission:

Only by chance did Samsung discover the suit by Seagate against Mr. Hogan while it was investigating these other potential bias issues reported post-verdict; and because the court file no longer exists, it was even later that Samsung discovered Mr. Hogan’s lawsuit against Seagate when Mr. Hogan himself disclosed it in an interview.

Nevertheless, Apple insists that Samsung waived because it “could have” and “should have” discovered the dishonesty before it actually did so by ordering Mr. Hogan’s 1993 bankruptcy file during voir dire. Opp. 2. Even apart from the impracticality of this suggestion (it took a week to receive the file after it was ordered post-verdict

Further:

the Court should reject Apple’s

4
untenable suggestion that trial counsel should engage, upon pain of waiver, in scorched-earth, extra- judicial investigations into a sitting juror’s life, absent any reason to believe that they lied on voir dire or otherwise warranted such an intrusion upon their privacy
. See Dyer, 151 F.3d at 978 (“While trial is ongoing, lawyers may not conduct the kind of aggressive investigation of jurors they would of other witnesses.”); 6/29/12 Hearing Tr. 63:18-64:13 (Dkt. 1166) (“THE COURT: I’m not going to give you the jury questionnaires that have been filled out long enough in advance for you all to research all these folks.”). The Court asked Mr. Hogan about his prior lawsuits; Samsung was entitled to rely on the truthfulness of his answers.

And, from the footnotes is an example relating to your point #3, though I am not clear on the outcome:

6 Apple cites one more case in its response to Samsung’s related motion to compel: Johnson v. Hill, 274 F.2d 110, 116 (8th Cir. 1960). Dkt. 2118 at 3. In that case, contrary to the facts here, “at the time of voir dire examination appellant’s counsel had information from two sources” that “put him on notice” that an answer given by a juror was not true, but nevertheless “he remained mute and made no request of the court for a further interrogation.” Id.

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981379)

Here is a tactical assessment, of course hypothetical:

Samsung knew about the juror and his past. That was their trump card. If the trial went their way; no problems. Otherwise they had option B. That is why it is Apple that is questioning the timing of the Samsung’s knowledge of the Juror.
I am not a lawyer, but I think it should have been Apple, before the trial objecting to the juror. They have failed to do so and now break point with: “Advantage Samsung”

Re:Who IS a lawyer here? (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981427)

If you had read the motion (or even the summary) you would know the answers to your first question.

Apple argues...that Samsung waived its juror bias argument by failing to make it sooner, but Samsung could not reasonably have ascertained Mr. Hogan’s dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has made clear and Apple cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public statements after the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple that the press speculated about their possible financial ties.... Only by chance did Samsung discover the suit by Seagate against Mr. Hogan while it was investigating these other potential bias issues reported post-verdict; and because the court file no longer exists, it was even later that Samsung discovered Mr. Hogan’s lawsuit against Seagate when Mr. Hogan himself disclosed it in an interview....
Nevertheless, Apple insists that Samsung waived because it “could have” and “should have” discovered the dishonesty before it actually did so by ordering Mr. Hogan’s 1993 bankruptcy file during voir dire.... Even apart from the impracticality of this suggestion (it took a week to receive the file after it was ordered post-verdict[...]), the Court should reject Apple’s untenable suggestion that trial counsel should engage, upon pain of waiver, in scorched-earth, extrajudicial investigations into a sitting juror’s life, absent any reason to believe that they lied on voir dire or otherwise warranted such an intrusion upon their privacy. See Dyer, 151 F.3d at 978 (“While trial is ongoing, lawyers may not conduct the kind of aggressive investigation of jurors they would of other witnesses.”); 6/29/12 Hearing Tr. 63:18-64:13 (Dkt. 1166) (“THE COURT: I’m not going to give you the jury questionnaires that have been filled out long enough in advance for you all to research all these folks.”). The Court asked Mr. Hogan about his prior lawsuits; Samsung was entitled to rely on the truthfulness of his answers.

Samsung argues that when asked, the juror deliberately withheld key information about his own legal history.

It is no answer, as Apple suggests..., that Mr. Hogan revealed another, unrelated lawsuit involving a former employee. To the contrary, a juror is presumptively biased where “she told the part truth that was useless, and held back the other part that had significance and value.” Clark, 289 U.S. at 10-11 (juror “counted off a few [past jobs] and checked herself at the very point where the count, if completed, would be likely to bar her from the box”); see Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.

At the Samsung CEO's Office (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981125)

The Samsung CEO has reportedly been seen holding his monocle and yelling:

HoooGAAN!

All I know is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981241)

Apple needs to be slapped.... And if Samsung is the only company that has the balls to stand up to Apple then kudos for them.

The juror is a minor part of the submission (5, Interesting)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981291)

Reading through Samsung's submission over at Groklaw, the whole juror misconduct is a rather minor part.

It goes on for pages about Apple's arguments during trial and disputes their claims, for example:

Apple’s attack on the legal standard for design patent infringement underscores the gaps in its evidence. First, the rule that “design patent infringement requires similarity so great as to deceive in purchasing” is not a “false premise” (Opp. 4) but rather the established standard for over a century. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871) (test is whether “the resemblance is such as to

5
deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other”). Apple’s authority confirms this. Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303-06 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (infringement found where accused products were likely to “cause market confusion”). Apple’s experts conceded that purchasers would not be confused. RT 1101:11-1102:8; 1103:2-1104:18; 1424:3-1425:22.

It goes on like this for pages and makes a very compelling argument.

A problem with the jury system (4, Insightful)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about a year and a half ago | (#41981337)

Picking random yahoos off the sidewalk, making sure they're sufficiently clueless/pliable, then subjecting them to a barrage of conceptually complex technical and legal points, from experts and lawyers from top schools and companies, and expect them to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions.

Imagine doing medicine or bridge/building design the same way.

This might have worked for a low tech agrarian society. But it is not a reliable decision-making system today. The jury system is at best cute and quaint, but certainly not a reliable way to reach accurate and reasonable conclusions.

Re:A problem with the jury system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41981415)

Picking random yahoos off the sidewalk, making sure they're sufficiently clueless/pliable, then subjecting them to a barrage of conceptually complex technical and legal points, from experts and lawyers from top schools and companies, and expect them to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions.

Imagine doing medicine or bridge/building design the same way.

This might have worked for a low tech agrarian society. But it is not a reliable decision-making system today. The jury system is at best cute and quaint, but certainly not a reliable way to reach accurate and reasonable conclusions.

The real question is who is a peer to a corporation? It is, after all, supposed to be a jury of your peers. Maybe we need a better definition of peer when it
comes to complex fields. Maybe a patent case should only be allowed to seat people that hold a patent exaiminers license.. for medical malpractice .. some form of medical license .. doctor, nurse, etc ..

The problem .. most of those folks will get excused and you will never have enough willing to fill a jury box.

Re:A problem with the jury system (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#41982075)

One problem with limiting the jury to people sharing the profession of the accused is that the jury might be overly sympathetic to the accused. Imagine a group of doctors hearing evidence of possible malpractice. They might weigh the evidence fairly, but they might also feel sympathy for the accused, remembering times when they were in similar situations, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Another issue would be them applying their own knowledge of the field instead of limiting their deliberations to the evidence presented to them in court. What if a doctor on a malpractice trial's jury knew how to perform the procedure in question? Could his knowledge of the techniques and pitfalls cause him to do exactly what the foreman in the Samsung jury did? He could become the jury's own "expert witness" and they might base their verdict off of what he says instead of the evidence and testimony given during the trial.

In many ways, it seems better to pick up random folks off the street so that they base their decision on the evidence/testimony and not their own knowledge of the field.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...