Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung 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."
What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did it take them so bloody long to reply then?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You saw how long it took them to update their website right ;)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.
Nope. The jurors were all given opportunity to disclose any previous legal wranglings. Hogan chose to omit the Seagate one.
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Even a bad day fishing beats a good day at work.
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was no fishing expedition. It was the foreman's own ego that is doing him and his trial in. No question he has a mission and intent in all of this. He stated as much in his many interviews. Things he said like "wanting to send a message" demonstrates he wanted to be judge, jury and executioner.
As far as knowing more about patent law? Either this guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows about the applicability of patents (he said something didn't infringe because of the processor it ran on was different? Really? By that standard, nothing infringes on Apple devices because Apple uses "special processors.") or he blew ample amounts of false information out to the rest of the jury to get the results he wanted. Either way, it's misbehavior on the part of this jurist. This is definitely one for the books and if this guy doesn't get some sort of action taken against him, it will be a little surprising. (Though I can see the argument for letting him slide on this... we don't want to discourage jurists from participating or we will NEVER have juries if they have risk of being prosecuted themselves... they will have to be careful about that.)
Apple's cases are becoming crap. The more data that comes out, the easier it becomes to win against Apple. And the more people win against Apple, the harder it will be for Apple to squeeze settlements out of people. I think we're already seeing an end of this debacle of Apple going thermonuclear. If Jobs were alive, I think he would have halted all of this long before it tarnished Apple's image as it has. Apple just looks like a spoiled rich kid now.
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
2. The judge asked the questions. Not the lawyers.
Re:What's up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in this case. See this transcript from groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf [groklaw.net]
I'm pretty sure "THE COURT" means the Judge. And I left the "Mr. Hogan" in there too, so there was no doubt.
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that Apple has claimed that Samsung should have known about the foreman's connection, and must have been hiding the information deliberately in case they needed to appeal. So Samsung asked, "well, did you know?" If Apple answered in the affirmative, then they open themselves up to the same complaint they made about Samsung. If they answer in the negative, then their claim about Samsung becomes nothing but sheer unfounded speculation. Apple had no winning card to play here, so they chose the least harmful one.
Re: (Score:2)
If they answer in the negative, then their claim about Samsung becomes nothing but sheer unfounded speculation.
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. I might reasonably allege that you should have recognized your ex wife. My failure to realize that you've had previous dealings with her doesn't let you off the hook.
Note that in no way am I defending the travesty of the ruling. It's utterly ridiculous. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that a major corporation's legal department would have a list somewhere of people they've sued (or been sued by), and might want to consult that list before starting new legal procee
Re:What's up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, gosh, that would be true if it weren't simply false! Samsung most definitely has said they didn't know until after the trial. In the reply that lead to this decision [groklaw.net]: "The court held only that claims of misconduct 'must be supported by proof that the evidence of misconduct was not discovered until after the verdict was returned,' which is precisely what Samsung has shown here." (Emphasis mine.)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Blogspam (Score:5, Insightful)
Jury wasn't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jury wasn't the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jury wasn't the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I said at the time that this was a huge judicial error. That she was ignoring the spirit of the law to follow the letter of the law. The reason for having filing deadlines is to prevent one side from dragging out a trial for so long that the cost of the trial exceeds any award amount, thus making justice uneconomical. But in this case the potential outcome was worth billions of dollars, while a few days extension would've cost at most a few tens of thousands. So clearly the spirit of the law would not have been violated by allowing the evidence, with perhaps a stern reprimand to Samsung's lawyers for missing the deadline. But she disallowed it, and now we're most likely gonna have to waste millions of dollars on a new trial because of her decision.
Re:Jury wasn't the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 prov
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to always know an awful lot nowadays. Secret meeting, secret negotiation. Yet there seem to be always plenty of people ready to say something. Maybe I am cynical, but I guess there too much incentive to have something "interesting" to say nowadays.
Let see it the other way. Neither Samsung, nor Apple has anything to benefit from any of this, much the contrary - winning, losing, their strategy was probably set for the next 10 years. But then out of nowhere, here comes a nicely packed little story f
Re: (Score:2)
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...
headline is really misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Alleged miss interpretation. As I said in another post, there is conveniently a lot of stories around this jury. Remember that only the jury members were there but there a thousands of journalists ready to pay for an exiting story.
OK it could have happened the way the "press" says it has. But really, the guy hold that kind of a grudge for 20+ years, but then blew it up in the press ? And what kind of revenge is that ? That's a movie or book revenge, not a real life one. Victories in first instance is onl
Re: (Score:3)
Re:headline is really misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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."
No that's not the case (Score:3)
That is only the case on a criminal trial, and then only if nobody finds out about it before hand.
Jury nullification is not a legal right, it isn't something specifically granted to juries. It is a de facto ability in criminal trials due to the prohibition against double jeopardy. Once a jury has been impaneled, if the case is dismissed or an innocent verdict is returned, the case may never be brought for retrial. As such, the jury can nullify by returning an innocent verdict.
However for that matter, the ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the same way. Verdicts can still be reviewed. Even if the courts can't challenge findings of fact, they can challenge application of the law, which is the argument in this case. Also they can change the awards. That last one is real common. Juries tend to be very free with other people's money and the appellate courts often reign that in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
how about if one of the jury members tries to sway the other jury members based on the one person's feelings and thoughts.
Do you understand that this happens in nearly every jury trial?
Re: (Score:2)
samsung hd business -- seagate (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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"
Looks like he answered truthfully (Score:2)
Have you been involved in relevant litigation IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. The suit was more than ten years ago. If he's on the jury wrongfully, it's because they didn't ask the right questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I've been involved in two jury trials and one Jury "picking"
at each one the very first questions asked (for weeding
purposes) were if anyone had ever filed for bankruptcy, or been
involved in any previous lawsuits. There might be exceptions
but those people were excused when I was in attendance.
I was once asked if I thought if a police man would lie, as it
was pertinent to the case, "Hell ya!" and I was off that jury, but
anybody who said no I felt had a warped sense of reality.
Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Well, if true... overt lying on the record under oath during jury selection, should be prosecuted as perjury. He should go to jail for that.
The case needs to be retried, and the juror should be responsible for any legal costs this may incur.
Re: (Score:3)
The points you make are true, and he has also admitted in interviews that he, himself, holds patents -- technology patents which could potentially be licensed by Apple, among others (we just don't know) -- and that he used his past experiences with patents to instruct the other jurors about patent law.
He has explained exactly what points he convinced the other jurors of (I don't have a direct link here) and attorneys who have been asked about his arguments have said that he was totally off-base and that he
Re: (Score:3)
A lie of omission is still a lie. The Judge asked him if he, his family, or anyone very close to him has ever been involved in a lawsuit. When you swear to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", you don't get to say just one example when there were multiple.
Let's say you've been in the hospital three times, once for your appendix, once for your tonsils, and once for a concussion. The doctor asks you "have you ever been in the hospital before?" Are you seriously going to just say "yeah, had my
Re: (Score:3)
Google [google.com] and Groklaw [groklaw.net] are your friends.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How are your feelings about this relevant to the discussion? What matters is the man's feelings - maybe he ascribed blame to Samsung however logical or illogical. What also matters are Samsung's feelings - did they feel they would be fairly judged. Finally what matters is the mans honesty.
The man lied. He got on the jury in a situation where normally he would have been barred. He then, according to his own admission, broke the law in order to damage Samsung. Those are the facts. The only question is whether Apple knew about his dishonesty and so was complicit. It seems that they did not. This shows that their claim that Samsung should have known was unreasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Apple's Legal Team (Score:5, Funny)
Apple's team is very skilled, so you can replace the 'or' with an 'and'
Re:Apple's Legal Team (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you are. The second time you have the fact that they only won the first time round by cheating to use against them. You've introduced a bias against them that wouldn't be there if you'd cried "foul" early in the first trial.
It's only the last verdict that counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'm not sure about that. I assume these lawyers are Samsung employees.
Re:Apple's Legal Team (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Apple's Legal Team (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Except that you're being contradictory... On the one hand, you're saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous and records from that far back are irrelevant, if not lost, and on the other hand, you're saying that the business relationship is so intricate and involved that anyone with a problem with Seagate must be biased against Samsung.
Did Hogan know that Samsung bought Seagate? That's a huge assumption you're making.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records.
What I'm then saying is that the records
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records. If Hogan had been a jury member in a suit, or an expert, or talkie, I could see the reference being in he law firm's records rather than Seagate's, but a past plaintiff against them?
More to the point, I'm saying it's more likely that Samsung had knowledge of Hogan (although they may have lost the records/not looked) than that Apple knew about him.
Re: (Score:2)
...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious th
Re:Apple's Legal Team (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
So in other words, the definition of a lawyer.
HE DIDN'T TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently Samsung owns shares of Seagate...
This whole case doesn't make much sense. Throw out the patents and start over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about Apple hate. It's about a guy who hated Seagate, and by extension, Samsung who found himself invited to being on a jury where Samsung was being sued over an issue very close to his heart.
If this guy were a judge in this case, he would have had to recuse himself. In fact, he was asked about information to determine if he should be on the jury at all and he omitted information which unquestionably would have prevented him from being on the jury, let alone foreman. Given the extremely troubled
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 ha
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't believe that is the point--the issue is that he lied (by omission) during jury questioning. His motives for doing so are less clear, and the Seagate connection has been suggested as a possibility. Regardless, it appears that the jury foreman (based on his own statements to the press) acted, at best, improperly... and that opens up the question, "was this a fair trial?"
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.
I haven't stated a position on whether or not I "want" a retrial, and I think my (or your) wishes on the subject really have no bea
Re: (Score:2)
All true. Which is why the juries are screened and their honesty is required as a qualification. This guy was not honest which taints the jury trial. A mistrial and a retrial is certainly warranted just as much as if the Judge happened to own Apple stock and failed to recuse himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to understand the difference between "ignorance of facts" and "ignorance of the law".
You also seem to have questionable taste in film.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think the issue isn't that he was involved in litigation, I think the issue is that he concealed it, regardless of his motivation for doing so..
When further Coupled with his statements to the press, which paint a picture of, at best, improper conduct in the jury room, I think it raises questions about how impartial the jury was, and it's worth the judge's time to consider the matter..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 blow
Re: (Score:2)