Feeds

back to article Samsung slams Apple patent jury, wants new trial in US

Samsung wants a new patent trial with Apple in the US, claiming the jury couldn't and shouldn't have come to its $1.05bn verdict for its iPhone-maker rival. The South Korean firm's filing with the court is partially redacted, but the section that's been blacked out is likely to claim jury misconduct, as previous cases cited to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Facepalm

Well, DUH!

Of course it was biased.

If Apple hadn't bought and paid for the verdict they would have been annihilated by Samsung for copying the Galaxy SII design on the iPhoney 5.

26
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

Surprise surprise a verdict that does against them HAD to be biased. If they don't like doing business in the US well there is one option open to them... DONT.

1
54
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

To be honest I don't think the US deserve any choice. They should all be forced to use (and pay for) iphones.

Condemn them to their isolationism, and just let the rest of the planet get on with things.

36
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

"Surprise surprise a verdict that does against them HAD to be biased. If they don't like doing business in the US well there is one option open to them... DONT."

I think Apple, amongst other companies, would be rather vocal in complaining if Samsung suddenly stopped doing business in the US. Given that it would render their devices bricks until they could find a new supplier.

Oh and US companies would have to violate lots of patents because they couldn't license them from Samsung's portfolio. Violating patents is bad, right?

12
0
Trollface

Re: Well, DUH!

"Violating patents is bad, right?"

Only if said patents belong to Americans :-)

15
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

It was amusing to see my post from 11:08 go to 19 thumbs up and 0 down before 14:00....

I did wonder when the first American was going to wake up and react... Looks like he/she has!

I guess it is down-hill all the way now!

1
1
Mushroom

Re: Well, DUH!

"To be honest I don't think the US deserve any choice. They should all be forced to use (and pay for) iphones.

Condemn them to their isolationism, and just let the rest of the planet get on with things."

Isolationism? You may want to check your dictionary. But if that is what you want then fine. We'll just be taking Apple, Microsoft, Google, Wall Street, Hollywood, and the Internet with us thank you very much. Assuming your society doesn't collapse from the overnight loss of these things that the "terrible and evil 'Mericans" made, enjoy the most boring modern existence imaginable. Cheers.

1
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

@Trokair 1

If we are playing the "what if, in an alternate reality" game...

You seem to think that those companies would survive the loss of a huge portion of their customer base. Or do you think that the bulk of their profits come from US citizens? Even if they did manage to wriggle out of collapse do you honestly think they wouldn't try to move out of the USA so they could...you know...sell the most products?

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

You can keep your Apple, Microsoft, Google, Wall Street and Hollywood thank you very much.

I'm not sure how you plan to take the internet away though. All it'd take is the creation of a new DNS root and the USA would have no control over the internet except that which is physically located within its borders.

3
0

Re: Well, DUH!

Sure, but we're keeping Jonny Ive, and the Web.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well, DUH!

no probs - we'll take back the WWW and let you lot subsist on IPv6 addresses...

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: Well, DUH!

I'm not sure Wall Street has done much good recently!

As for "I'm taking my ball back"... We'll have the world wide web (Thanks for that Sir Tim) and how about all the ARM microprocessors... Enjoy your Apple door stops ;-)

1
0
Thumb Up

Go Samsung! lets see this court case be run properly :)

21
3
Anonymous Coward

Maybe Samsung should just accept the verdict and concentrate on R&D and making phones too eh?

3
49
Bronze badge
Trollface

Optional

"Maybe Samsung should just accept the verdict and concentrate on R&D and making phones too eh?"

Yeah, how else will Apple be able to steal their ideas, give them silly names, and claim they invented them?

35
0
Silver badge
Devil

Had to be an AC didn't you

You would never post this comment under your real id as being called out as a pathetic isn't nice.

just go buy an iPhone and use the mapping app to walk around a bit and you will hopefully fall into a river.....

20
2
FAIL

Maybe Samsung should just accept the verdict and concentrate on R&D and making phones too eh?

Don't Samsung make the 32nm mask A6 processor used in the iPhony 5 in Austin, Texas?????

If true, it means that the iPhoney 5 is smaller and more power efficient because of Samsung.

3
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

"Meanwhile, Hogan himself told Bloomberg TV the same thing."

""Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it... (I) laid it out for them," he said."

So they had an amateur patent lawyer on the jury who regarded his oath as a juror to be a minor irrelevance - according to the contrast between his signed promise/oath when he became a juror and his own words in the aftermath.

Furthermore, I do not feel that it is going too far to wonder if his experience as a patent holder might perhaps be thought to have had some influence on his attitudes with regard to a US company complaining that a foreign company was ripping them off - particularly such a famous US company as the one involved. Given that he was the foreman of the jury and other jurors have said that he provided them with "guidance" and he has admitted that himself, it is clear that there is a serious risk that he was steering a jury who were virtually drowning in that large and complex trial towards the verdict he preferred.

62
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: "Meanwhile, Hogan himself told Bloomberg TV the same thing."

Furthermore, somewhere on Groklaw there is a hilarious explanation given by Hogan as to how he reasoned that the Apple software patents were valid, demonstrating in vivid and brain-aching detail that he doesn't understand the first faintest detail of how software is developed. In essence, he was saying that for the patent to be invalid, the prior art must be byte for byte compatible with the new development, so that you could take the older program and run it without recompilation on the newer hardware.

Wait, what? Is he fucking kidding?

GJC

26
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Geoff Campbell Re: "a hilarious explanation given by Hogan "

It is of course for precisely that reason that jurors in such complex cases are given a very clear instruction which can be roughly summed up as "if you need any guidance on points of/interpretation of the law ask the Judge". It has to be that way because (as you have indicated) it you get a saloon bar loudmouth/fast talker in a complex case where the jury are struggling you end up with this kind of mess. The guy's fearless belief in his own "perspicacity" and "knowledge" are exactly the kind of thing that can totally fuck up any chance of a rational result from a lay jury. His overweening ignorance remarkable self-confidence led him to utterly disregard the clear promise/oath he had signed as a jury member and the sheer complexity of the trial that the rest of the jury were drowning in led them to accept his dubious leadership when they should (given that they had signed the same promise) have told him to shut the fuck and, if necessary, complained about his behaviour to the Judge.

18
0
Silver badge

Re: Stuff

Actually, you raise an interesting point - why did not one or more of the other jurors mention Hogan's behaviour to the Judge? I'm pretty sure I would have, had I been there.

GJC

8
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: "Stuff" I have to say that I am not sure.

My guess is (and I admit it is a guess) that they were so intimidated by the avalanche of evidence and decisions required of them that they were only too grateful that somebody appeared to know what they were doing. It takes some self-confidence to insist on going back into court in order to ask for guidance from the judge - and risk feeling that you have made a complete fool of yourself in a very public fashion, a feeling that is very intimidating for many people when they are being asked to cope with something as complex as the arguments presented at this trial.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: "Stuff" I have to say that I am not sure.

True enough, certainly.

GJC

2
0
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: "Stuff" I have to say that I am not sure.

The odds are that Hogan formed an opinion early on - even had one before being seated. He then argued that opinion to the jury until they caved. Since he has his personal "experience," he felt entitled to an opinion. The jury probably wanted to go home, and also, after "Judge Lucy's" displays of temper, were actually afraid to ask for guidance from her. No telling whether she would rip them a new one, or not. Of course they also wanted out of the jury chamber. So after Hogan offers what seems like an "informed" and reasoned opinon, they said, "fine, whatever you say. Let's go have a beer."

5
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

@Marshaltown Re: ""Judge Lucy's" displays of temper"

That is highly likely IMO. A jury in that situation need to feel that the judge is sympathetic to the highly onerous task they have been faced with. It is of the first importance that the judge makes it clear that he/she not only welcomes such questions from the jury but regards it as part of the jury's job to pose them such that the jury-members feel reassured that the judge is supportive. If they are however drowning in a complex case, are also faced with potential public humiliation at the hands of a "bad tempered beak" and have a saloon bar know-all in the jury room one ends up with the kind of situation one sees here.

3
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

And yet...

If you read stuff in say, ZDNet or some other blogs you might get the impression that the verdict is final and won't be changed, and Apple has swept all before it. Browsing on such sites gives me the impression that they are so bemused by Apple that they really can't see that there might be flaws in Apple's case and that Samsung might just be right in what they say about the design patents and so on.

Groklaw seems to have a more balanced view, unless of course you still believe that PJ is the product of a conspiracy to promote the interests of IBM etc. There, PJ and her colleagues say that until the appeals, requests for a retrial etc are heard and judgement given things are still in the balance.

I'm sure that Apple will be wishing that jury foreman Hogan had kept his fat mouth shut and not given Samsung the ammunition he has. Still, we shall see, a US court might be reluctant to go against Apple especially as it is sited only a few miles away from Apple's HQ.

23
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

@nematoad Re: "I'm sure that Apple will be wishing that jury foreman Hogan "

Once other members of the jury had started to speak in public about the case (as they inevitably would, especially given that the press would certainly be pursuing them for interviews) it did not matter whether he had opened his mouth or not. In fact, once the foreman of the jury had disregarded his oath as a juror within the jury room during the course of the trial in the blatant way that this guy by his own admission did, then the case for ruling a mistrial was always going to become known and Samsung's lawyers would be "on the case" (so to speak :)). The verdict in this trial appears (with the wisdom of hindsight, natch) in practice to have been a ticking bomb ever since it was delivered - the issue now is, in whose backyard the blast craters are going to end up.

18
0

Re: And yet...

PJ's reporting is biased wherever the GPL is concerned (don't misconstrue this as thinking I supported SCO; SCO deserved the fate it got). Once she gets outside that area, I find her fairly level-headed.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Just hope

That if the case does go to appeal, they'll let the appeal take case on a court that specializes in patent law. I think Texas is one right?

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Just hope

Where was Oracle v. Google held? That judge had his shit together.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Just hope

Yeah, especially the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. They have some good judges and honest juries who will help any patent owner enforce his IP rights with no questions asked. You can't find another bunch of patent-friendly people than these. Just by filing there for patent infringement you have about 90% chance to win no matter how good is your patent. Samsung should also counter-sue there too.

2
0
Silver badge

Two questions

1: AFAIK, in the UK it is illegal for the jury to discuss their deliberations with anyone, even after the trial. Is this not the case in the USA?

2: People talk about the expense of lawyers, understandably. Are the lawyers and legal teams involved actually the long term employees of Apple and Samsung? (In which case the marginal costs are travel, accomodation, any court administration charges, etc.)

1
0
Silver badge

Two Ansewers

1) In the UK you are correct, in the US it's different and Jury interviews are allowed.

2) The legal teams are not in house lawyers each company brought in external layers for this case, if you are really interested check out groklaw.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Two questions

According to the instructions I was given back in May whilst on a Jury, you are right I'm still not allowed to talk about the deliberations part of the trials I was on. We had to re-read the judge's instructions a few times to keep us on track otherwise personal opinion would have leaked into our verdict, even though it was the same at least we reached it for the right reasons rather than opinionated reasons, I think there is a big difference.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Two questions

1. Nope

2. Probably, although I wouldn't be surprised if some high priced consultant lawyers have wangled their way onto the gravy train.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Two questions

Opinionated... Google jury nullification... You can disregard instructions... As I would if I was ever a juror on one of those heart wrenching murder case that was assisted suicide for some poor locked in person who had expressed an opinion.

But they try to filter out such contrarians on jury selection.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Two questions

Re #1, I,m pretty sure that after the trial any restriction is up to the judge. It would likely have a great deal to do with whether the judge imagined there was going to be an appeal and anxious they were to avoid a reversal. The jury's conduct is really the judge's responsibility. In the US you are enjoined not to discuss the case with ANYONE while the trial is on, and not to discuss it even with fellow jurors outside the jury chamber.

Normally, walking out of a trial after the verdict is rendered, the prosecution and defense (in criminal trials) are liable to be lurking in the hall, hoping to button hole jurors to find out why they won or lost the verdict. I dodged my chance. I couldn't see telling the prosecution that they seriously weakened any case they had by worrying about how one of the defendants dressed, and being inconsistent about what the well-dressed cock-fight viewer would wear. Likewise pointing out to one of the defense attorneys that it was not his fault that his client was exonerated, having literally put (incriminating) words into his defendant's mouth and being totally unable to get the client's name right even once, and indeed, that the evidence that exonerated his client was from the lawyer whose client was convicted seemed pointless.

0
0
Silver badge

nevermind a retrial

each and every samsung employee worldwide should be allowed to go to this hogan twat's house and kick the shit out of him.

4
12
Anonymous Coward

Re: nevermind a retrial

Yeah that would solve every problem - we need geniuses like you to solve all the worlds problems.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Q.Q. Samsung.

Pay up and move on.

1
31

why should they?

This whole trial was a mess from the outset and should have been dismissed from the outset. Sure, Samsung took a lot of inspiration from Apple's design and processes, just like Apple did from other designers and manufacturers. But to say they copied them is just plain ignorant. So why should Samsung pay for something they didn't do?

15
0
Silver badge

Re: why should they?

" Sure, Samsung took a lot of inspiration from Apple's design and processes, just like Apple did from other designers and manufacturers."

I read in an article here about the case that the first thing Apple did was buy a load of different phones and break them down to see exactly how they worked both on software and hardware.

They then used this to come up with a baseline for the iPhone, next they went through the design etc process obviously watching the newer handsets that came to market so as to ensure they didn't leave anything out.

This is ok in their view as they didn't "copy" others however anyone who looked at the iPhone and did the same as they had are evil nasty copiers who should be find gazillions and banned from selling their phones.

Samsung deserve to have a retrial and it should take place as soon as possible and be allowed to accept as much evidence as each side wants to submit. On top of that firstly all bans etc against Samsung should be dropped and they should need to place say 2 Billion with the courts in case they lose but before any of this there should be a case to decide is any of the patents either side are claiming are in fact patent-able or if they should be denied, once that is done we can then get down to a case with a fair result for the winner.

What the US needs more than anything at the moment is a court to be set up with experts who can look at disputed patents and decide quickly if they are ok or not before so much time and money is wasted in court cases. The crazyness is shown up where Samsung have a case with Apple for 8 patents infringed and that is not due to go to court until March 2014, thats 18 months.........

18
1
Silver badge
Stop

"Pay up and move on."

Why should they, when the jury have been dumb enough to repeatedly mouth off about how they totally fucked up the process of delivering a fair and impartial judgement, and clearly disregarded instructions.

Even if you are willing to disregard and take with a pinch of salt the concept of bias prior to trial, and even if you respect some of their judgements, the jury still blatantly ignore due process.

13
0
Bronze badge
Trollface

That's the trouble with wet weather like this. It drives all the trolls out...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Jury was fatally flawed.

Foreman was a tech patent holder himself, everyone looked to him for constant advise (basically making it a one man jury), and his interpretation of prior art was fatally flawed, despite being clearly explained in the jury notes... He also believed they didn't need to question the validity of patents, when again the jury notes said they should have.

If this doesn't go to retrial, then it only further highlights how messed up the US legal system is.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120904190933195

and

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

24
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Jury was fatally flawed.

Interesting reads. At the end of the first, the phrase "Sulk Hogan" sprang to mind,

I wonder why?

1
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Jury was fatally flawed.

It's actually impossible to have a fair jury trial in this case.

Clearly the information is of a technical matter, so someone needs to technically literate to understand it, however being so instantly make you biased one ware or another, as it's guaranteed you will have read about the trial online (or offline) somewhere in the media, with it's own biased spin on the trial, depending upon which advertiser they are keeping sweet.

7
2
Silver badge

Re: Jury was fatally flawed.

Hell.I cannot believe it. I've actually upvoted one Barry's posts - I need to lie down.

3
0
Stop

Re: Jury was fatally flawed.

In discussing the first patent on the list, he says they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

That isn't disqualifying for prior art. It doesn't have to run on the same processor.

The jury was fatally flawed, no the Jury was brain dead. by Hogan's logic crApple software wont run on a samsung phone therefore there is no prior art and no IP infringement (by crApple).

How brain dead do you have to be not to also conclude that since samsung software wont run on a crApple phone that therefore there is no prior art and no IP infringement (by samsung).

Or did everybody on the jury just think "Oh will this effing idiot ever shut-up, I'll just agree with him or I'll never get out of here"

4
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.