Re: Rational decision @ Observer1959
moron, that is all.
Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the US, but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent …
moron, that is all.
Mark, what a moronic shithead you actually are. <-- ad hominum attack
Interestingly, your posts continue to display that you cannot read or in fact do not read the comments posted on this website. The over preponderance of rabid intellectual lightweight fanboys on this site leans in the "fandroid" favour by about 20:1 (conservatively).
You entire post is made without reference to anything in fact. Just the normal mindless drivel you spout here constantly. If these forums had a kill switch, you would be the first on my list. Damn, even RICHTO writes something intelligent occasionally. You on the other hand promulgate mindless illogical crap.
please go away.
I actually own one.
Jokes aside, I totally agree. Which is why people make fun of Apple/MS/Google/etc. fans. It's a load of ego worship. The masses want gods to worship. Give them gods I say, and make them cruel and tyrannical. HHOS
The complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of prior art by the jury foreman, as evidenced by his own post-trial statements, and his admissions that he instructed everyone else to use his definition.
Conflict of interest or no, and I find the conflict of interest argument pretty weak, the things he said should be enough to rule the whole thing a mistrial.
he ignored the Judges instructions and admitted it to the press later. That in itself should be enough to call it a mistrial
Sad as it sounds it looks like he could have said "hell yeah, I had an axe to grind against Samsung and got a $1b axe, FOAD Samsung!" and Samsung couldn't do a thing about it, as stated in the post:
Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial
So comments can't be used IN a new trial but surely they can be used as a REASON for a re-trial?
From the way its reported in the article here it appears that the Judge has said that Samsung can't claim a new trial on the basis of the bias of Hogan as they had the opportunity to question him in jury selection ... however that doesn't seem to cover the 2nd aspect that its claimed he "introduced new evidence" in the jury room by explaining to the other juries "how patent applications work".
He introduced complete b*ll*cks into the jury room -
"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."
It's not new evidence, it's a complete failure to understand what prior art means. Not that prior art is always given as much credence as us geeks think it should be given, but still.
Re: Ignoring the judges instructions. Here is a comment from Lucretius on Ars Technica:
"Then, for those who view Groklaw as unbiased and an authority, here's news for you. They overlook facts.
One of the most sensational claims by Groklaw, on the day after the verdict, was that the jury had apparently disregarded instructions (a +100 page document) during deliberations. This discovery was quoted on hundreds of forums and websites. The sole evidence was that TheVerge had a claim by the foreman to the court that the jury had reached conclusions without needing instructions, as mentioned on their live coverage.
What actually happened, if you read the live coverage, is that the jury initially turned a verdict that contained contradictions concerning three decisions out of 600. Samsung mentioned these, and the court (and Apple) agreed to send the jury back to deliberation to fix these mistakes. The jury then asked for additional instructions to clarify the mistakes, which were sent to them. Meanwhile, the jury had apparently understood where the mistake was, and told the court that they had reached a conclusion without needing these instructions.
But the myth that the jury had disregarded all court instructions and was proud of it is still alive... without any subsequent correction by Groklaw..."
So no mistrial.
The lead juror in question is on video saying exactly what I quoted - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY
This isn't about reaching conclusions without instructions, it's about total misunderstanding of what makes up prior art, which in a patent case is pretty important.
A misunderstanding is not cause for a mistrial--it was the responsibility of the lawyers to explain things to him in a manner that he could understand. And the conflict of interest is pretty strained. There's a good case that Samsung's lawyers found out about his earlier legal cases and chose not to object to him because he previously had been a defendant, and Samsung expected that would make him more sympathetic to the defense.
Tell you what you should have been on the jury - but then again you prob work for Samsung PR. Second guessing this that and the other - got to love it.
He explained the process they'd been through to decide the issues of prior art. He explained how he had come to a decision on what constituted prior art. This decision was then given by him to the rest of the jury. This decision was wholly wrong. I would say that it is the judge and the court's responsibility to explain to the jurors what the issues are and how they are applied, especially in slightly arcane areas like patents. Either they did this inadequately or the juror in question subverted the court's instructions.
If there isn't a mechanism in law to recognise that what happened there results in a miscarriage of justice, then there ought to be.
I agree the conflict of interest is a minor issue, if an issue at all.
"Tell you what you should have been on the jury - but then again you prob work for Samsung PR. Second guessing this that and the other - got to love it."
Second guessing what? That quote from the foreman is plain as day and available on youtube.
No, I don't work for Samsung, and the only sense in which I'm being paid to post this is that I'm posting this when I really ought to be working...
For all you (and I) know Samsung may have known about it and decided to keep schtum as it could then be used later if they lost - if they won then of course it's irrelevant.
"Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial"
I'm sure it will come up in appeal, but (IMHO) it should have been a huge red light to judge Koh. I suspect we'll just have to watch this play out over the course of several years like the SCO thing. For a billion dollars it's worth Samsung's while to challenge it for as long as humanly possible. Or however long lawyers can do it.
David - I was referring to the AC @ 12:23 regarding ignoring the judges instructions.
A misunderstanding is not cause for a mistrial--it was the responsibility of the lawyers to explain things to him in a manner that he could understand.
However, Hogan chose to ignore what the lawyers explained and instead put forward his own half-arsed explanation of prior art.
What about the jury awarding damages for Samsung product that the jury said did not infringe crApple patents. Sounds like Hogan wasn't the only one doing things in a half-arsed way.
But this isn't the same thing as 'no appeal' is it?
The judge will not hear the case again, in her courtroom, on her circuit.
However, the due process does permit Samsung to appeal the court above.
When asking for an appeal, Samsung will need to show evidence that would pursuade a reasonable person to believe they didn't get a fair shake in Koh's courtroom.
They have been gathering such evidence for a while now.
But according to:
"Samsung attached a portion of the jury selection process in which Hogan promises he can set aside his own understanding of patents and only use the judge's interpretation of the law and her instructions. But after the trial, Hogan and other jurors who gave interviews said that his experience helped them come to their decision"
So if he lied during voir dire how is that Samsungs fault?
He lied.... and a jurer lying is surely cause for a mistrial?
Since juries operate under oath, isn't that Perjury? And a juror convicted of perjury taints the jury, meaning the trail is not by definition fair.
Remember he was but one - assume that is why we have juries of so many people.
But in a criminal trial they have to reach a UNANIMOUS decision: meaning EVERYONE has to agree. In such a situation, ONE tainted juror is enough, which is why the law says jury tampering is grounds for a mistrial.
He didn't lie there - he reneged. In voir dire, he said he could restrict his understanding of patents to that provided in the jury instructions, with the implication that he would do so. Then, in deliberations, he failed to behave as he had claimed he would during selection. There's no lie, and no perjury, just arguably juror misconduct.
Koh decided that wasn't grounds for a mistrial, possibly because she doesn't think it rose to the status of misconduct; possibly because she doesn't believe Hogan's public remarks after the trial constitute legal evidence of misconduct; possibly because she thinks Samsung should have asked Hogan to be more explicit about following instructions and not using outside interpretations of patent law during voir dire; possibly for some other reason entirely. It doesn't do us much good to speculate.
Personally, I'm curious why Samsung didn't eliminate Hogan with a peremptory challenge - maybe they'd used them up already, or maybe they thought their chances were better with him than with whoever was behind door number two. If I were defending a patent-infringement lawsuit, I don't think I'd want anyone with patent experience on the jury. That's much too unpredictable.
As title, how is this not mistrial? How much did they pay to bribe the judge?
The whole US legal system should be blowed up and start over.
Blownded up, y'all.
She seems to be the only one coming out of this with reputation and sanity mostly intact. Whilst you may question some of her decisions - and lets face it if she said white is white - someone on the internet would - however she has been remarkably even handed in the whole thing.
Justice seems to have been served - even if maybe the letter of the law hasnt'.
Nearly everyone else involved in this from Sammy, Apple - their laywers and the juror's should hang their heads in shame.
Samsung were found guilty of patent infringement by a jury which did not understand what constitutes prior art and could not understand when they were shown Samsung's multi-touch implementation that it was not as described in Apple's patent. The patent was not infringed and should not exist. Justice has certainly not been done.
er, no. There is a slight pro-Apple tilt caused by the occasional billion dollar award.
The pro-Apple 'tilt' is because they were found guilty - that's how it works you see.
Being found guilty it's exactly the problem here. In case you didn't notice, the jury even hurried to grant Apple monetary damage for Samsung devices that were not found to be infringing. True, they came up with corrected figures but it is clear that their main preoccupation was to punish Samsung instead of just finding the truth. Judge expressly told the jury not to award billions as a punishment and our brilliant jury foreman told the press he wanted to inflict something that is more than a slap on the wrist because he is a patent owner and know how it feels in this kind of situations. So Samsung lawyers are correct here, no billions should change hands without this being sorted out first.
If the juror comes out spouting about how he tampered with the outcome is that not a case of tampering.
Had he come out in the UK and said what he has said he would now be in gaol anyway.
A juror cannot "tamper" with the outcome of a trial. This is meaningless drivel.
Each juror has one vote and can influence the vote in proportion to the number of jurors. (elementary arithmetic).
Each juror has the opportunity, in fact obligation, to weigh in with their input into the verdict.
The foreman of the jury has the "herding cats" hat, but he has one vote.
For all you folks out there who couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery, I ask you this. When was the last time you convinced 11 OTHER PEOPLE to change their mind on a single subject?
This whole thing about the foreman is such a tedious discussion. The judge threw it out. Jury cases are always unpredictable and Samsung lost out.
Literally and I hope she sent both of them to bed without any supper.
"What changed between Samsung’s initial decision not to pursue questioning or investigation of Mr Hogan, and Samsung’s later decision to investigate was simple:
Hogan shot off his mouth to the press, barging about how he ran the show, played the expert and told every one else what to say.
He shot his mouth off - that does not mean that is what happened or that it had any negative influence on the other jurors. If you were a juror and some guy just started saying "yes he's obviously guilty coz I say so" maybe you would just ignore him. Give people more credit.
"He shot his mouth off - that does not mean that is what happened or that it had any negative influence on the other jurors. If you were a juror and some guy just started saying "yes he's obviously guilty coz I say so" maybe you would just ignore him. Give people more credit."
Then you would be ignoring the fact he said to the press that the jury was leaning torward a verdict in Samsungs favour until he misinformed them on the subject of prior art... among other topics.
"Give people more credit." Have you met people?
Have you met AMERICAN people?
Reckon it's more that he wants his moment of glory - maybe we should interview all the other jury members and ask them if they were so weak willed to be led by him?
More to the point - have you met jurors?
I've served, and even for a minor case, most jurors seem to feel a huge psychological burden. In a major case like this it's even worse. Consequently jurors are prone to questioning their own judgement, and in the deliberations room a little rhetoric can go a long way. If one juror - particularly the foreman, who's already in a position of some authority - starts to lecture the others on technical points, that person can have a tremendous influence on the verdict.
The adversarial nature of the US legal system aggravates this, too - jurors see trials as a struggle between two sides, not as an attempt to discern abstractions like "truth" or "justice". So juries are swayed by narrative and appeals to emotion (pathos) more than by facts, particularly technical facts.
That he broke the law is well known - why is there no retrial?
Er.... Because he didn't break the law. If he had, he would have been arrested and charged.
Because he didn't break the law. If he had, he would have been arrested and charged.
Since as we know, everyone who breaks the law is arrested and charged.
I am by no means sure Hogan broke any laws, or even that he is guilty of misconduct (which would be a matter of violating the judge's instructions, and not of "breaking the law" per se). But your comment is a swell example of magical thinking.