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!

Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-idea-yerhonor dept.

The Courts 186

quantr writes with the news that Apple claims that the company "wasn't aware during trial that the foreman of the jury that issued a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung Electronics Co. was involved in a lawsuit with his former employer, Seagate Technology Inc. 'Samsung asked Apple to disclose when it first learned about the litigation between the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, and Seagate. Apple responded in a filing yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California. Samsung is attempting to get the Aug. 24 verdict thrown out based on claims the trial was tainted by the foreman's failure during jury selection to tell U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, who presided over the case, that he filed for bankruptcy in 1993 and was sued by Seagate."

cancel ×

186 comments

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

What's up! (4, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154457)

Why did it take them so bloody long to reply then?

Re:What's up! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154561)

You saw how long it took them to update their website right ;)

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154581)

Because in 2012 the truth doesn't matter, only what can be proven. So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.

Re:What's up! (0, Troll)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154749)

meh. it sounds like a fishing expidition to me. make a whole lot of noise, waive your arms around. try anything to invalidate a case that you lost. i dont blame samsung's lawyers, because if they cant turn this shite around then their reputation is toast, but its not fair to the foreman whose name is getting dragged through the mud.

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154869)

I suggest you read up [google.com] on this a bit. I agree that the Seagate/Samsung tie seems to be a bit tenuous until you look at what this man did to get on the jury. He wanted to be there and that, my friend, demonstrates bias.

Upon further research, it appears that he also ignored the judge's specific instructions, presumably because as a (former?) patent holder, he knew more about patent law than the judge does.

If this was a fishing expedition, it was a good day out fishing.

Re:What's up! (-1, Troll)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154963)

worst case, this judgment is thrown out and there's another trial where apple wins even more money. sammy should stop while they're not too far behind!

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154997)

you are forgetting that the only reason samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of samsung before he spoke up.

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155045)

Except that Apple never should have won in the first place and almost certainly will lose on appeal. If the jury had not been tainted by a jury foreman with an agenda, Apple would never have won -- and before you dispute this, please do some research. This man is on record incriminating himself.

Re:What's up! (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155347)

I don't know, it is hard to see how a trial taking place down the road from Apple's headquarters against a Korean company could be all that fair when the jury clearly have a vested in interest in protecting their local economy and the US economy in general. At the very least the retrial/appeal should be moved to a more neutral location.

Re:What's up! (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155141)

Even a bad day fishing beats a good day at work.

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

akboss (823334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154877)

So in your opinion the Jury Foreman was right to with hold the fact that he was involved in other lawsuits, including one against Samsung where he LOST the verdict. It is ok in your world when the Judge asks you to disclose ALL litigation to with hold the one important one against the defendant.

Re:What's up! (0)

noh8rz8 (2716593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154973)

worst case, this judgment is thrown out and there's another trial where apple wins even more money. sammy should stop while they're not too far behind!

Re:What's up! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155005)

you are forgetting that the only reason Samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of Samsung before he spoke up.

Re:What's up! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155463)

/looks at noh8rz8's post history.

/Looks at latest post of his/hers:

worst case, this judgment is thrown out and there's another trial where apple wins even more money. sammy should stop while they're not too far behind!

You wish, Apple Fanboy/Fangirl!

Re:What's up! (0)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155035)

Because in 2012 the truth doesn't matter, only what can be proven. So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.

Then you'll be happy to know that Seagate bought Samsungs hard drive division in 2011, not the other way around, so I don't see how he could be biased AGAINST Samsung when Samsung lost their hard drive division to Seagate. If he hates Seagate, then he should feel sorry for Samsung for losing their hard drive division to Seagate, right? Maybe Apple should sue because the foreman was biased for Samsung and a billion isn't enough LOL.

Also isn't it the job of Samsungs lawyers to ask the jury members questions during jury selection to make sure they're not biased? Samsung should be suing their lawyers for missing this, it's not apple's fault.

Re:What's up! (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155341)

Then you'll be happy to know that Seagate bought Samsungs hard drive division in 2011, not the other way around, so I don't see how he could be biased AGAINST Samsung when Samsung lost their hard drive division to Seagate.

Let me suggest you take off your cupertino-colored glasses and educate yourself on the facts.

1. Samsung sold its hard drive business to Seagate and received stock in return. So much stock that Samsung is now Seagate's largest shareholder.

Also isn't it the job of Samsungs lawyers to ask the jury members questions during jury selection to make sure they're not biased?

2. The judge asked the questions. Not the lawyers.

Re:What's up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154671)

Umm.. because no company is beholden to the public, and this is the first time the court has asked. As much as it's a bruise to your ego that Apple didn't tell you first, they don't have to. Samsung never told the Jury about their unfair labor violations either now did they?

Re:What's up! (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154801)

When asked "did (the collective) you know about x?", and you did know, it may be easy to answer quickly - you only need identify one individual or document with that knowledge. To answer that you didn't know requires that all parties who could have known be asked, along with checking all relevant records. It's much harder to prove a negative, as they say.

Re:What's up! (5, Insightful)

Duncan Booth (869800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155077)

Because one of Apple's objections to Samsung's motion to have the verdict overturned is that the information was readily available so Samsung should have known during the trial and therefore they've missed their opportunity to object. If Apple didn't know during the trial it undermines their argument (whereas if they had known and not brought it up it would have been even worse for them).

1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2, Insightful)

stevez67 (2374822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154475)

Talk about grasping at straws. Oh wait ... no ... just ambulance chasers keeping the $$'s flowing. In other news everyone on the Jury has bought either a Samsung or Apple product or product containing a Samsung part at some point in their life and obviously tainted the jury.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154487)

Film at 11, courtesy of components manufactured in part by Samsung.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (5, Insightful)

BlackTriangle (581416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154497)

A big company might not care, but a personal human being can hold a grudge forever. I know I would. This foreman tried to slip one by and now has been caught by the pure luck of the story of two star-crossed lawyers.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (5, Funny)

akboss (823334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154891)

A big company might not care, but a personal human being can hold a grudge forever. I know I would. This foreman tried to slip one by and now has been caught by the pure luck of the story of two star-crossed lawyers.

Not to mention his going to the media afterwards and talking about how he screwed the verdict.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154551)

There's a big difference between having bought a product from one of the parties to a lawsuit and being a former employee who sued one of them.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154639)

He was involved a lawsuit with Seagate, which is not Samsung.

Every juror who purchased an Apple product but no Samsung phone could be said to be biased in favor of Apple (they chose the Apple product over a Samsung product, after all).

Every juror who purchased a Samsung product, but not an Apple smartphone could be said to be biased in favor of Samsung.

You want jurors who own devices from both, or who own devices from neither, eg.. Blackberry / Windows 7 Phone / Palm owners.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154803)

Seagate bought out Samsung's HDD division. Due to the history that he had with Seagate and having to file bankruptcy, I'm sure he still harbours some ill will to anyone who had dealings with Seagate.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155383)

Seagate bought out Samsung's HDD division. Due to the history that he had with Seagate and having to file bankruptcy, I'm sure he still harbours some ill will to anyone who had dealings with Seagate.

If he was ever an employee of Apple, Samsung, or a Competitor, then yeah, he should be excluded from the jury, due to the possibility of personal interest in the outcome -- or past employer interest in the outcome (possibilities of being influenced by previous employers, or harboring a disposition towards a previous employer).

However, Seagate's "hard drive division" is not Seagate. Buying out their business unit, shutting it down, and transferring the business to a Samsung business unit, doesn't make Samsung seagate.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (3, Insightful)

rogueippacket (1977626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154813)

My understanding of the U.S. Legal System may not be up to snuff, but doesn't handpicking a jury (based upon their personal tastes) defeat the entire purpose? It would be like asking all of your selected jurors whether they or someone they love has been involved in a violent crime, and only admitting those who have into a case where the defendant is on trial for murder. At that point, it won't matter if it's Mr. Rogers on trial - every single person in the jury is now extremely emotionally invested, instead of neutral and supposedly rational. Selecting a random group ensures that there may only be one or two people with such an investment, and the odds of them swaying an entire jury are quite low if the facts presenting are overwhelming.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154911)

and the odds of them swaying an entire jury are quite low if the facts presenting are overwhelming.

You missed the opposite side of the coin. Those same individuals are also unlikely to be swayed even by overwhelming facts.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155017)

Actually, you are not so much selecting jurors during the process as you are removing potential jurors from the pool (because you can demonstrate some reason they would not be impartial). I believe both sides of the case also have a limited number of uncontested juror eliminations (from the jury).

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (5, Informative)

Karzz1 (306015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154993)

There are actually several issues with regard to this jury foreman.

The first of which is that he was sued by Seagate, which not only bankrupted him but also put his house into foreclosure. That is something that I am sure he will never forget and he will be biased against any entity that has favorable dealings with the company that *ruined* him until his end of days. Now, I agree with you that if this was *all* the evidence against this man, that is grasping at straws.

However, there is also the issue that this man, as jury foreman, used his position in the jury to sway the other jury members to make a ruling that was in direct conflict with the instructions handed down by the judge; then he *went on record* bragging about it. So, not only does he have an MO, he also acted in a manner that suggests prejudice/bias.

Lastly, he lied during the jury selection process so that he would be put on the jury. That in and of itself also demonstrates bias.

Face it, this man had an agenda and he followed through on that agenda. There is a reason why this is the one flagship case Apple brings up every time they lose another case in another jurisdiction; and this "win" is in serious jeopardy.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154643)

There's a big difference between having bought a product from one of the parties to a lawsuit and being a former employee who sued one of them.

True, but he's not a former employee of Samsung ;-)

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154769)

True, he isn't a former Samsung employee, but an ex-employee of someone Samsung is invested in.
None of which matters terribly much, since the real issue is not disclosing a lawsuit he was a party in, when he was instructed to do so.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (0)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154575)

It's one thing saying that you own something containing a Samsung part (Technically owning an iPhone qualifies), it's quite another being BANKRUPT by a company that Samsung is significantly invested in. You don't easily forget about such things.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154761)

It's one thing saying that you own something containing a Samsung part (Technically owning an iPhone qualifies), it's quite another being BANKRUPT by a company that Samsung is significantly invested in. You don't easily forget about such things.

WTF?? Seagate acquired Samsung's HDD business in Dec. 2011. So the foreman has an axe go grind with Samsung now? The case was 20 years ago... 1993... was Samsung invested in Seagate in 1993? I can't see the connection, nor can I see how it is a failure of the foreman to disclose if he wasn't asked about it. I have a prediction: Samsung is going to fail to have the verdict set asside, the case overturned or even be granted an appeal based on this ridiculous notion that because the foreman was sued by Seagate in 1993, and Samsung sold off its HDD business to Seagate in 2011 that therefore the foreman was biased against Samsung. If it was somehow the other way around, that Seagate had sold some business division to Samsung, such that former employees of Seagate were now Samsung employees... then the accusation might make a slight bit of sense... but not really.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154829)

And? I see people on Slashdot every single day who still hold grudges against various companies for actions that those companies made 20 or more years ago and those people have far less of a reason to be angry than someone who was bankrupted.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154861)

except... it's Seagate the guy allegedly holds a grudge against... Samsung selling off its HDD business to Seagate doesn't make any part of Samsung Seagate... but a former part of Samsung is now Seagate. If the allegations are true, this doesn't affect Seagate in the least. Say I have a grudge against you because you slash my tires... then you buy another knife from the local cutlery shop... in what twisted universe is it revenge if I burn down that cutlery shop?

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155433)

Now you're committing a grave mistake. You're trying to bring reason into something that is basically isn't about reason at all.

If this Vermin Hogan had been a man of reason, he would have realized that whatever he lost long a ago is gone, and creating a mess for anyone in anyway related to Seagate won't make that undone. It will only create trouble for himself starting by having to do jury duty and possibly ending by being in receiving end of criminal prosecution as well as a retaliatory lawsuit from a very angry, multi-billion company with extremely expensive lawyers who can make him live in a cardboard box for the rest of his life, and the resources to follow him to the end of the earth if it's what it takes.

However, he has thrown all that out the window in the name of getting even. Reason have no place in this.

Re: 1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (2, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154845)

Well, it didn't stop this bullshit flamebait article submission from outright stating in the headline that the foreman preciously "tangled" with Samsung. Slashdot has literally become Idiocracy.

Re: 1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (1)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154923)

Well, it didn't stop this bullshit flamebait article submission from outright stating in the headline that the foreman preciously "tangled" with Samsung. Slashdot has literally become Idiocracy.

No, it's business as usual. Slashdot has always been filled with intelligent but intellectually dishonest commenters.

Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154867)

Grasping at straws... I guess if I wanted to help them grasp, I would say that the US courts hold that companies are people. They also hold that people are entitled to a jury by their peers. So I want a retrial with the jury made up of HTC, Huwei, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, etc. since those are their peers.

Blogspam (5, Insightful)

mrsam (12205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154503)

This submission spams a boring blog, with a link to the real article [businessweek.com] .

And that's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154513)

All these things should be decided by a single expert in the issues at hand.

cocUk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154515)

something cool polite to bring *BSD has lost more writing is on the driven out by the been sitting here of its core be forgotten in a OS. Now BSDI is continues in a Sux0r status, *BSD rotting corpse JOIN THE GNAA!! first organization butts are exposed show that *BSD has used to. SHIT ON around are in need accounts for less To the politically to deliver what, around are in need OpenBSD, as the It transforms into are looking very And financial Out of business Nigger Association of prograaming lead developers IS DYING LIKE THE minutes. If that. Contact to see if

Apple's Legal Team (1, Funny)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154529)

Either incompetent or lying, it would seem.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154549)

Apple's team is very skilled, so you can replace the 'or' with an 'and'

Re:Apple's Legal Team (3, Funny)

MikeMo (521697) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154589)

Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?

Re:Apple's Legal Team (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154789)

Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?

They probably did, but it was a strategic move - they were gathering arguments for a possible appeal in case of a bad verdict. When lawyers discover a serious flaw or misconduct in the trial, they don't report it (or protest against it) at first. They use it later for appeals.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155271)

That doesn't make sense... For a variety of good reasons (cost, risk, others), you aren't going to lose a fight just to have an opportunity to fight again. Unless you're proposing it's a strategic move exclusively from Samsung's lawyers' perspective.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154591)

Either incompetent or lying, it would seem.

What now? So if Apple's lawyers didn't know before Samsung's lawyers, then they must be incompetent? Is Samsung's team really that bad? I can't think of an amusing term for a Samsung fanboy, but you are it. How ridiculous can one person be?

Oooh, Fansung. No wait, Samsboy. No, I got it - moron.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154597)

Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get.
They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this.
Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155023)

Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get. They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this. Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.

... except that Samsung, being in such a close relationship to Seagate, had access to Seagate's records and would have been easier able to find the conflict. I mean, you probably have no idea if I've ever been sued and by whom, but if someone sued your spouse, you'd probably know about it. If you and I got into a lawsuit and that person was on the jury, you'd probably notice them long before I ever would, just as I'd probably notice the other jury person who sued me long before you would.

The question this raises is not whether Apple knew, but whether Samsung knew about Hogan and sat on that information to use in case of a bad jury verdict.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155167)

Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that.
However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (4, Funny)

sa666_666 (924613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155079)

I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.

So in other words, the definition of a lawyer.

Re:Apple's Legal Team (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155059)

Do you even know what a "jury" is?

Jury wasn't the problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154531)

Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.

It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness, because the patent office has gotten so far away from reality that it gives patents for existing stuff simply by adding "on a handset".

So you may have wished the jury was just normal people, who would see the stupidness of it, and reject the claim regardless of the patent, but instead you got a person who FOLLOWED THE PATENT LAW, the insane stupid, nonsensical law, and promptly issued a $1 billion penalty that was appropriate, if we all lived in a lunatic asylum where this patent regime makes sense.

IMHO, the fix for this decision is for Korea to issue a patent infringement case against Apple for $2 billion, and make it clear to everyone that this is just protectionism disguised as an 'innovative' curved corner design, and a camera icon that looks like a camera.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (5, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154587)

i wouldn't say samsung infringed, cause fact in this trial the jury pretty much ignored their instructions when it came to prior art. Even in post interviews they admitted they did, and speed through the sheet.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (2)

Fanboys_Suck_Dick (1128411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154971)

It's possible that the jury instructions regarding prior art were misinterpreted but you are wrong about what was said in the post interviews. In the post interviews the foreman said that the jury was having trouble reaching consensus on one patent relating to prior art and decided to move on to deliberate easier patents. When they were done with those easier patents they returned to the difficult issue that they skipped earlier. This is standard behavior in jury deliberations and not against the jury instructions. The false belief that they completely skipped it is commonly posted here and probably stems from a series of erroneous and biased Groklaw articles that were posted on Slashdot in August.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (3, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155221)

And the issue they were having trouble with was they did not believe there could not be prior art. And that is where the foreman stepped in and told them as an expert in patents that the prior art they had been shown could not be valid because it ran on a different processor.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155451)

Which is juror misconduct because that evidence had not been vetted by the judge.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154623)

Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then? There is no infringement if the patent isn't valid.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154699)

Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?

If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.

There is no infringement if the patent isn't valid.

Patent trials are a bit counterintuitive on this one. Infringement and validity are decided separately, so a jury could find that Samsung infringed the patent, but that the patent isn't valid. This might seem pointless, but if the invalidity finding is overturned on appeal, the infringement finding may still be upheld.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154935)

If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.

Sufficient prior art evidence was presented to them. The foreman in question convinced the rest of the people, acting as an "expert", that prior art did not invalidate patents. Jury members other than this foreman have stated that this is exactly what happened.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155041)

I was only speaking in general. I haven't read everything about this specific case, so I can't say whether or not I think this jury should have found any of these patents invalid. I've seen people here on Slashdot say various things about what happened with this jury, and I know enough about Slashdot, especially when it comes to patent law, not to assume any of it is true.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154765)

They could have. But the jury foreman told them they didn't have the authority to do it. Hah.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (1)

itsdapead (734413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155349)

Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?

Only if one of the warring parties presents them with enough evidence to do so.

When both parties are huge patent-holders, don't expert them to do more than nit-pick the specifics of the opposition's patents. Presenting more general arguments about the absurdities of the patent system might backfire undermine the value of their own portfolio...

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (4, Interesting)

Dogbertius (1333565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154723)

I usually avoid posts with several ALL CAPS sentences (so I must ignore my own post after committing in :) ), but you make a good point. I've personally gone through hundreds of patents for my own entrepreneurial work, and can't believe the sheer number of patents that are "XYZ, which has been around for 20+ years, but now on a phone/mobile_device/tablet".

I was actually surprised Nokia won that patent suit against RIM. Wifi on a mobile device? The first thing I said to myself when Wifi came out was "Man, imagine this on a phone. Cheap calls and zero data plan overcharges". That was, of course, until telcos and ISPs decided that rather than innovate or improve infrastructure, they would just litigate against tech that benefits the customer (ie: anti net neutrality, fees for tethering your phone even though it costs the carrier nothing, likewise with SMS messages, which have been around for 20 years apparently, potentially forcing a voice plan on you if you are just using a data plan with Skype).

Regardless of how this affects my business personally, it seems the absurdity with patents and monopolistic practices amongst ISPs (whose money was used to lay the cable in the first place anyway?), there is a constant war on the consumer. I really wish the layperson (ie: 75%+ of voting individuals) would at least realize this so we could effect change. No wonder critical thinking isn't taught until university (if at all) and one can go through his or her whole life without a single course on formal logic, fallacies, and statistics.

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155053)

Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.

It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness

There aren't any "basic common sense tests" of invention, prior art, and obviousness, just as there isn't a "basic common sense test" for whether an accused murderer is guilty. They're legal decisions, subject to the requirements of due process, and must be supported by evidence. Just as you can't say, "I have a gut feeling that he looks guilty, so let's send him away for life," you can't say "I have a gut feeling that this patent is obvious, so let's make it invalid." You need sufficient evidence that proves guilt (such as DNA evidence, witness accounts, etc.) or that proves obviousness (such as one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, teach or suggest everything in the patent).

And incidentally, "prior art" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prior art" is anything in the art (industry) that is prior. So, for example, the Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for Google Glass. The term you're thinking of is "anticipatory prior art" - where one piece of prior art discloses, explicitly or inherently, everything in the patent claim. So, if a patent shows A+B+C+D+E, you show that the patent is invalid because it is anticipated by finding one piece of prior art that shows A+B+C+D+E. You show that the patent is invalid because it obvious by finding one piece of art that shows A+B and another that shows C+E and another that shows D.

Note: this is a description of the law as it currently exists, not as you might wish it to be, so don't get upset with me because I'm telling you that showing obviousness requires evidence

Re:Jury wasn't the problem (2)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155063)

Actually there was prior art, that the foreman talked the rest into ignoring because he was a supposed expert. That shows a problem with a jury.

headline is really misleading (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154621)

The jury foreman did not have a previous tangle with Samsug. He had a previous tangle with Seagate. Seagate is not a subsidiary of Samsung. Samsung has invested in Seagate to the extent of a 10% share.

It seems a stretch to claim that the foreman's anger at Seagate from 20 years ago must necessarily extend to all current investors in Seagate.

Re:headline is really misleading (4, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154693)

People have held grudges for far less. However, his deliberate miss interpretation of the jury instructions is almost certainly rooted in his past legal battles.

Re:headline is really misleading (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154709)

The issue is not Samsung's investment in Seagate...the issue is the jurors were asked if they had been involved as either a defendant or plaintiff in civil litigation before and the foreman specifically omitted the Seagate lawsuit.

I'm not sure why this particular filing is important....Apple filed a similar motion asking Samsung to divulge when it first learned of the foreman's involvement in a Seagate lawsuit.

None of this seems as relevant as the foreman's apparent failure to actually consider the case on its own merit and rather substituting his own personal views/knowledge of patent law (which seems to be wildly incorrect based on comments both by the foreman and other jurors).

Re:headline is really misleading (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154949)

None of this seems as relevant as the foreman's apparent failure to actually consider the case on its own merit and rather substituting his own personal views/knowledge of patent law (which seems to be wildly incorrect based on comments both by the foreman and other jurors).

I'm not sure this matters. Remember that the jury is free to completely throw out the law if they like (Jury annulment). In general the decision of the jury cannot be questioned, even if their reason for coming to the verdict was, "I don't like police."

Re:headline is really misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155073)

The exact laws for jury nullification tend to be complicated in practice, but in general, I don't think you can use it to convict in any case. Breaking the law is what gets you a conviction, so nullifying a law gets you a not guilty verdict.

IANAL

Re:headline is really misleading (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155243)

On the other hand, if we threw out every jury case because the jury had 'wrong reasons' for their decision, then we would probably throw out every jury case.

Re:headline is really misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155145)

No. Jury annulment can find a person not guilty because they do not believe the law is just; they cannot find an innocent person guilty because they don't like them. That is a stupidly obvious miscarriage of justice.

Re:headline is really misleading (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155355)

As a matter of fact, juries CAN find an innocent person guilty because they don't like them. Juries are arbiters of law and facts.

Now, in modern practice, the judge can overturn a jury decision in favor of the defense, but the judge doesn't have to.

It might be a miscarriage of justice, but it's legal. Thomas Jefferson justified it by saying essentially, "yes it's a problem, but better to give that power to juries, because if we give it to judges, it will be much worse."

Re:headline is really misleading (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154775)

There is more about it than this. The lawsuit representing Seagate in that case (which caused him to go bankrupt and lose his house IIRC) is related to a lawyer in the Samsung case's side.

samsung hd business -- seagate (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154965)

http://drive.seagate.com/content/samsung-en-us [seagate.com]

as far as hd businesses go, they're effectively the same company in strategic partnership. for someone with a grudge it would certainly be enough.

the guy's a dimwit though, bragging about. no ethics - or style - at all.

THE REAL FUCKING LINK (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154637)

God damnit slashdot editors, pull your head out of your asses...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/apple-says-it-was-unaware-of-samsung-jury-foreman-s-suit

Jeez, timothy (4, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154653)

Fix typo please.

"Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung"

should read

"Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Seagate"

HELP ME UNDERSTAND (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154659)

was involved in a lawsuit with his former employer, Seagate Technology Inc.

So what? 20 years ago Seagate sued this guy... how is this even remotely relevant to Samsung?

Re:HELP ME UNDERSTAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154705)

Why don't you Google it, waldo.

Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND (0, Troll)

paimin (656338) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154865)

Google what? His point is that it's NOT relevant, which is true. Oh, right, it's relevant to your Apple-hate. Sorry, carry on.

Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155103)

Since Samsung partially owns Seagate how is it not relevant?

Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155329)

Since Samsung partially owns Seagate how is it not relevant?

Because that's now, or since Dec 2011. If the acquisition happened in Dec. 1992, it might be relevant... but probably not. What would make this relevant is if in Dec. 1992 Samsung acquired Seagate, but not if in 2011 Seagate acquired part of Samsung. You see... even assuming that the foreman had a grudge against Seagate for 20 years, hurting Samsung has zero effect on Seagate. If Samsung shut its doors on Monday due to this verdict, Seagate would not have any valid business reason to care because they already got what they needed from Samsung... Samsung's HDD business would live on happily within Seagate.

HE DIDN'T TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH (2)

jjo (62046) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154809)

This is relevant because it has a potential for bias, and also because this guy did not tell the whole truth in pre-trial questioning, raising the possibility that he was trying to get on the jury to vindicate his legal philosophy on patents. If Samsung had known about the Seagate matter, they could have objected to his being seated on the jury.

Re:HELP ME UNDERSTAND (1)

guruevi (827432) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155051)

Apparently Samsung owns shares of Seagate...

This whole case doesn't make much sense. Throw out the patents and start over.

Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (0)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154793)

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?

Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154875)

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?

The issue is that Apple says that a mistrial is inappropriate, because Samsung "should have known" about this. Hence Samsung's response, "Well, when did YOU know about this?"

It's win-win for Samsung, I think--if Apple knew about it, then they're shown to (possibly) have unclean hands. If Apple did NOT know about it, then it's absurd for them suggest that Samsung should have.

Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155011)

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?

The issue is that Apple says that a mistrial is inappropriate, because Samsung "should have known" about this. Hence Samsung's response, "Well, when did YOU know about this?"

It's win-win for Samsung, I think--if Apple knew about it, then they're shown to (possibly) have unclean hands. If Apple did NOT know about it, then it's absurd for them suggest that Samsung should have.

Right... because time and again ignorance of facts overturns cases all the time. I got away with murder once because during the trial it was revealed that I didn't know murder was against the law... got the case thrown out.

This is just like that Jason Statham movie Safe, where the bad guys tell him they'll kill anyone he makes friends with... in one scene Statham gives his shoes away to a homeless guy, and the next morning the homeless guy is DEAD! Wow... this foreman is seriously evil, and anyone thinking about doing business with Seagate ought to think twice or else.

Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (2)

itsdapead (734413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155289)

>

If Apple did NOT know about it, then it's absurd for them suggest that Samsung should have.

If it turns out that Apple knew that the juror had a possible grudge against Samsung and said nothing then they might be in trouble - but it wasn't Apple's responsibility to go out and hunt for reasons why the jurors might have a grudge against Samsung. That was Samsung's job, and they should be in a better position than Apple to know who they and their partners have sued over the years...

If the connection between Samsung and this guy is so tenuous that he wasn't in their Little Black Book then its harder to suggest that he'd be biassed against them.

Meanwhile, remember that the jury also threw out some pretty silly patent claims by Samsung. There are no "good guys" in this case, so if you fancy a retrial, be careful what you wish for.

Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154897)

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?

On what grounds? That the Foreman was involved in a litigation two decades ago that had nothing to do with either party? Yeah... I can see that logic.

Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155119)

So if you sue a company that is owned partially by another company, does that mean that it has nothing to do with the owning company? Yea, I CANT see that logic.

Revenge is a dish best served cold (0, Redundant)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42154823)

Wow... kudos to the foreman... waiting in the tall grass for 20 years for some sweet payback... that billion dollar verdict against Samsung will make Seagate think twice before suing him into bankruptcy ever again. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Seagate... they must be shitting their pants, thinking "how did we let this guy fuck us over so hard?"
/sarcasm

This makes no sense.

Re:Revenge is a dish best served cold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155107)

Wow... kudos to the foreman... waiting in the tall grass for 20 years for some sweet payback... that billion dollar verdict against Samsung will make Seagate think twice before suing him into bankruptcy ever again. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Seagate... they must be shitting their pants, thinking "how did we let this guy fuck us over so hard?" /sarcasm

This makes no sense.

No... it does. The foreman is a twisted, evil person. You see... Seagate isn't without feelings, you know. If they care about people, they'll never do business with any other company again because they now know this foreman might be instrumental in leveraging a billion dollar verdict against anyone who does business with Seagate. This will drive Seagate to despair.

Re:Revenge is a dish best served cold (1)

catmistake (814204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155203)

Wow... kudos to the foreman... waiting in the tall grass for 20 years for some sweet payback... that billion dollar verdict against Samsung will make Seagate think twice before suing him into bankruptcy ever again. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Seagate... they must be shitting their pants, thinking "how did we let this guy fuck us over so hard?" /sarcasm

This makes no sense.

No... it does. The foreman is a twisted, evil person. You see... Seagate isn't without feelings, you know. If they care about people, they'll never do business with any other company again because they now know this foreman might be instrumental in leveraging a billion dollar verdict against anyone who does business with Seagate. This will drive Seagate to despair.

I am concerned. The only harddrives I've ever purchased are Seagate products. I love their multi-year product warranties, and most of my drives are still covered by Seagate's unmatched five year warranties. How can I protect myself against this relentless unforgiving agent of evil that is ruthlessly and systematically taking out anyone with which Seagate does business? Not sure or not if it's related, but someone has poisoned my dog. I'm taking my family on a vacation just to be safe... just until this blows over... I hear Cape Fear is nice this time of year.

Re:Revenge is a dish best served cold (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42155131)

Revenge never makes sense.

Enough already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42154841)

Just have a new trial, fine the foreman the cost of the original trial that he deliberately and maliciously tainted, and be done with it.

Re:Enough already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42155295)

Just have a new trial, fine the foreman the cost of the original trial that he deliberately and maliciously tainted, and be done with it.

I like it! And when it's done, tell him "See, you only THOUGHT Seagate fucked you in the worst way possible. It was YOU, dear boy, who has fucked himself in the worst possible way ... and ... have a nice day!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>