Feeds

back to article Apple-v-Samsung $1bn iPhone fine: 'Jury foreman was biased'

Apple's billion dollar patent court victory should be dismissed, Samsung say, because the jury foreman in the case was biased. Samsung's call for a retrial in the fight between the two tech giants will be heard on 6th December by judge Lucy Koh in the same San Jose court where the original verdict was handed down. New …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Meh

Well that and...

... that the guy, despite being a patent holder himself, didn't understand the concept of prior art and has been quoted thusly -

"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 was his reasoning for dismissing and ignoring all prior art claims. This verdict is so full of holes I could use it to drain my pasta!

59
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Coat

Re: Well that and...

> This verdict is so full of holes I could use it to drain my pasta!

Not unless you want your pasta in the sink and down the plug hole.

25
0

Re: Well that and...

Not only the prior art interpretation that the jury foreman used to mislead the jury, but also the fact that the jury foreman interpreted source code and probably mislead the jury on the basis of his interpretation of that as well. (Same program is coded differently by SDK for each system - did the jury foreman tell the other jury members. He told the jury that the coding was different, but the programs could have been copied.)

The jury decided the case, but not on the evidence presented in court. Samsung have a good appeal case. What the jury foreman said afterwards was almost unbelievable, but read the BBC transcript of the the interview yourselves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051

For non-UK readers, in English civil proceedings, what happens in the jury room stays in the jury room.

15
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well that and...

You make out like these people did not sit through the trial and the judge is an idiot but YOU know better - grow up.

2
32
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well that and...

Just because you don't like the verdict does not mean the jury and judge were corrupt etc.

4
26
Silver badge
Thumb Down

How is this 'news'? El Reg trying to improve their numbers?

I must be missing something. This stuff has been out in the open for weeks. What is 'new' about it?

Is this a cynical attempt by El Reg to improve their numbers?

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: This stuff has been out in the open for weeks

But has only just been presented to the court and given a date for hearing.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Well that and...

I do hope that pasta is not in the form of rectangles with rounded corners.

litagliatelli i think its called

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Well that and...

just because you did like the verdict doesn't mean they weren't

6
1

Re: Well that and...

@AC 16:08 GMT x2

"You make out like these people did not sit through the trial and the judge is an idiot but YOU know better - grow up." & "Just because you don't like the verdict does not mean the jury and judge were corrupt etc."

The issue being commented is outwith the trial in the court, it is about the evidence subsequent to the trial by the jury foreman.

What the jury foreman did in the jury room, on his own evidence to several journalists reporting him verbatim, was contempt of court. In an English court that would almost certainly have resulted in imprisonment, not very long after the reports of what he said.

I don't know about the contempt of court time-scales in the USA, but certainly jurors are also jailed for contempt. Beyond any reasonable doubt, what the jury foreman did in this case was wilfully contrary to the Judge's instructions, and the jury instructions require that his conduct should have been reported to the Judge. Evidently it was not, and prima facie that evidences that the remainder of the jury were acting under the undue influence of the jury foreman, which given what he has said is sufficient grounds for a mistrial.

14
1
Silver badge

Re: Well that and...

Oh no, there's gonna be a fusilli comments now.

1
0

Oooooh

Samsung might have a case here...

...but damn, they're really stretching the case here, no matter how much you'd want to see Apples win turned over. Then again, with a billion dollar fine due to be paid soon I guess it doesn't harm them to try appealing it.

6
23
Facepalm

Re: Oooooh

I am not a lawyer, but if there's one thing I've noticed about Samsung's case, it's that they have their good points but they seem to bury them under a heap of only-vaguely-likely conspiracy theories. It's very much quanity over quality of evidence. And it seemed to annoy Judge Koh before, so perhaps isn't the best strategy for the appeal.

1
1

Re: Oooooh

I hope they are also pursuing this line as well

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/samsung_new_trial_attempt/

... because its much more convincing that Hogan used his own tainted technical knowledge to help sway the jury, than that he had a vendetta, especially when its straight from the horses mouth.

13
1
Silver badge

Re: Oooooh

@dotdavid:

They have no choice but to add every possible currently known issue *now* or lose the right to ever raise them. That's the way the US system works. While I suspect the Seagate issue is imaginary only 1 man knows for sure. His real reasons for corrupting the jury process may never be known.

What's important to remember is today's report is only about Koh responding to recent filings, over this specific issue and the more dangerous 'when did Apple know' question. Hogan's reported behaviour in the jury room is already part of the proceedings and will be handled in the same Dec6 hearing.

If Koh doesn't void the result there are so many procedural errors in the jury verdict it's unlikely to stand anyway. In fact if Apple cared about collecting the $1bil they would be trying to rehear the case, the verdict wording prevents them collecting triple damages! They don't because they actually only want the bad Samsung PR and to prolong the legal harassment, a 2nd trial with a fair jury, with Samsung allowed to present all the evidence, with so many opposing precedents accumulated round the globe isn't likely to go well for Apple.

6
1
Silver badge

They could throw in "also, he said a lot of retarded shit indicates that he totally ignored the judge's instructions". Which, cleaned up, might play slightly better than this Kevin Bacon stuff.

33
2
Silver badge
Stop

Agreed - if he ignored the judges instructions then by definition this was a mistrial.

6
3
Anonymous Coward

Yes yes Rumpole - calm yourself. Get a law degree then comment. I said VANILLA milkshake and don't spit in my burger.

1
15
Anonymous Coward

Ooh, the return of the anonymous spit eating lawyer! Please explain to us why it's ok for the jury foreman to claim prior art means "must run on the same device"? And maybe you could also explain why we allow people who aren't politicians to have an opinion on politics, why people who aren't musicians are allowed opinions on music, and why your ridiculous "get a law degree then comment" statement should be respected.

19
1
Bronze badge

Bias training.

Considering the public had been trained on this by an emotional media and fans egged on by Apple's words, how could the jury not be biased?

The jury surely had already been near enough rounded up into a corner.

16
1

Re: Bias training.

"Rounded"? "Corner"? Those are dangerous words you're using there!

10
1
Silver badge

How long before ....

.... a drama-documentary is made, based on all this (and more to come)?

I could put together a rough and generic script, have it registered with the appropriate organisations, then sit back and wait to sue anybody who makes a successful product.

0
0

Re: How long before ....

You could call it 'Twelve Confused Men'.

Phil.

4
1
Silver badge

Since one US Jury was drunk or stoned through most of a case

And their verdict STILL wasn't overturned then Samsung are likely to have a tough time selling this one.

1
6
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Since one US Jury was drunk or stoned through most of a case

As well as the Apple/Samsung one?

Outrageous!

0
1
Thumb Down

Good luck to them, but

No doubt this will be portrayed in US media as "Massive Faceless Korean Corporation goes after little freedom-loving American Inventor who loves kittens and Apple pie".

Ever since the beginning this case seems to have been devoid of all logic, I don't see why anything would change now.

19
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good luck to them, but

What pie did you say?

I think you'll find that Apple invented Apple pie (that have any form of rounded corners). Mind you , if somebody volunteered to mince up the Apple lawyers I'd gladly turn the oven on to bake them in a pie.

11
2
Pint

Re: Good luck to them, but

Hah! I didn't even spot that. Well picked.

Here's an upvote to counter the lawyer who obviously didn't appreciate your good humour.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good luck to them, but

"Massive Faceless Korean Corporation"

The truth then.

1
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good luck to them, but

Yeah, Apple has a massive face!

1
1
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Clutching at straws

I hate Apple for many reasons but this does seem to be clutching at straws. Why not point out that he lied about other stuff? I'm sure there was mention before about him having been involved in court cases and he said he hadn't, claiming he'd been asked "in the last 12 years" when nothing like that had been added. Isn't there also the huge matter that the jury is *not* supposed to come up with the figure as a way of punishing a company and setting an example? The fine is up to the judge, the jury just come up with the decision based on facts. Supposedly.

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Clutching at straws

The guy wants his moment of glory - the jury are advised on points of law by the lawyers (on both sides) as well as the judge. People make out as if this one guy put a gun to the other jury members heads and made them vote his way. With or without him I'd expect the same result.

2
17
Silver badge

Re: With or without him I'd expect the same result.

Yeah, have faith in the "good ole boys"...

0
0

A technical question occurs...

..if Samsung manage to discredit the foreman, sure that's only 1 vote, and unlikely to swing the majority decision?

Assuming that a majority verdict is even a requirement, of course?

0
10

Re: A technical question occurs...

Not really if you read what he said to places after the trial he told the people what to do basically, how to interpret things, and told them to ignore the judges instructions so pretty much he lead the jury to their decision it wasn't based on what the judge's instructions.

22
3
Thumb Up

Re: A technical question occurs...

Who knows why you are being downvoted, he says in a video interview the jury wasn't in agreement and he says he personally thought "how could I defend this if this was my patent", then he goes on to say how because the prior art chipset wouldn't run Apple's code then its not the same, his influence is how a jury managed to decide the outcome to such a complex case in what was it 48 hours?

Essentially I don't think the Seagate information is as damning as the interviews he gave after the verdict, where he says how he uses prior knowledge (which he had sworn not to) and as above says himself how he completely messes up how prior art should be examined.

Also how is El Reg only now running this story? this was covered by Groklaw on the 7th of October! http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121004050859829

6
2
Vic
Silver badge

Re: A technical question occurs...

> pretty much he lead the jury to their decision

He claimed that the jury was about to find for Samsung, until he had his "a-ha" moment.

If there's to be any semblance of propriety in this case, this verdict needs to be overturned. I've no idea how much of Apple's case was legitimate, and how much bluster, but the jury verdict was such a monster mess it cannot possibly stand...

Vic.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Not grasping at straws at all

Are they going for 6 degrees of separation now?

2
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not grasping at straws at all

No 7 and you are not allowed to have owned any electronic device or lived on earth - or or be male or female. Apart from that.

1
5
Facepalm

Ok this is going a bit far into silly territory.

But my Samsung washing machine broke down last weekend, so I guess that makes me biased.

2
9
Silver badge
Coat

The jury

Cases like these should not be put to a jury. It is a lottery of 50/50.

0
2
Thumb Up

Re: The jury

Which is why they ALL get appealed. More work (and money) for the lawyers.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The jury

Samsung would have loved those odds - the reality is they were into the courtroom expecting to lose. I'd slap them with 3x damages for it being wilful as they were a Apple supplier and privy to more details / in a position of trust.

1
17

Re: The jury

Is your name Velvin Hogan? You sound just like him!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Samsung = desperate. Pay up and move on.

2
19

Jeez Reg, this news is about a fortnight old.

4
0
Silver badge
Trollface

I rather think...

...that it's somewhat more than a fortnight old.

Still, nothing gets in the way of a Leach trollfest.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: I rather think...

Think you mean leech

0
2
Pint

Re: I rather think...

TBH I didn't actually read the article and gave the author the benefit of the doubt by assuming she was perhaps referring to this, re the latest court filings (v.interesting), since the "news" that Velvin Hogan fucked it up is so old even my mum has heard it.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.