Have looked at him in a funny way!
Samsung has filed a new, unredacted version of its motion requesting a new trial in its $1bn patent dispute with Apple, revealing allegations that the jury foreman in the original trial engaged in serious misconduct that prejudiced the verdict. Attorneys for the South Korean mobile maker originally filed the motion in …
Have looked at him in a funny way!
If it turns out that he is responsible, send him the bill for all the costs of the original trial, plus the full costs for a retrial!
Dunno about the US, but in the UK you can't go bankrupt twice!
>Dunno about the US, but in the UK you can't go bankrupt twice!
I think you can but only like once every ten years or so. Hey that explains why Trump goes bankrupt about once a decade (working towards his fourth).
There is no limit on the number of bankruptcies you can file in the US that I know of. It is common for individuals to claim more than once. It may also seem strange to many other countries that in the US the loser court is rarely obligated to pay legal fees. These and other issues keep our courts very busy.
My bad 8 years on a Chapter 7.
I meant to say "the loser court is rarely obligated to pay the opposing party's legal fees"
perhaps try: l'addition s'il vous plait.
instructions that Samsung claims were "incorrect and extraneous" and "had no place in the jury room."
And Samsung would be right.
In another interview Hogan says that he believes that had he not been there, the deliberations would have taken longer and likely involved a lot of questions being referred to the judge. This, of course, being the way it's supposed to happen. What Hogan did was act as an expert witness in the Jury room, and it's not something that's permitted.
Take the source code for example, in an interview, Hogan stated that he was able to read it and so translated it to the rest of the Jury. What should have happened, is realising they couldn't understand it, they should either have asked the Judge for direction or simply dis-regarded it.
The thing that's funny about all this though, is it would never have happened in the UK. Or more accurately, would never have come to light, because the Jury aren't allowed to discuss deliberations at all. So, no media interviews for a start.
It's those media interviews combined with Hogan's apparent love of his own voice that have given Samsung the ammo for this motion. Had he stayed quiet, large parts of the issue would never have come to light. It's doubtful a lawyer would discuss jurors by name with his spouse, so I suspect it's the media coverage of Hogan (who's going to forget a name like Velvin Hogan?) that triggered a memory.
All in all, it's a bit of a fucker. On the face of it, this guy seems to have unfairly influenced (and I'm not speculating on his reasoning) what was touted as the most important patent case to date, and as a result that ruling is going to be viewed as a complete sham.
So not only as he possibly led the Jury in to deciding in a way that they may not have done beforehand, but there's now the delay and expense of a re-trial on the horizon.
Whilst the Judge could dig deeper in, I suspect she won't. Judge's often take the path of least resistance, if it looks like there's a chance a retrial might be needed anyway, she'll probably take the issues with Voire Dire as evidence enough.
Apple won't be happy, Samsung clearly aren't, the only ones who stand to benefit (as usual) are the lawyers.
"Apple won't be happy, Samsung clearly aren't, the only ones who stand to benefit (as usual) are the lawyers."
This is true, I just hope this is getting enough limelight in the US for their citizens to realise how absurd software patents really are.
I realise I'm dreaming here.
Somewhere in one of the interviews Hogan gave he claims to have thought the jury were heading in Samsungs favour - implying that only changed when he had his 'a-ha' moment and led them over to Apples side.
That's very credible, while the jury ruled for Apple on the software patents, they ruled against Apples design patents - Hogan couldn't drown them in bullshit on something so simple.
Hogan is probably now #2 on Apples hit list after Google. He just sank their whole campaign. What they won won't survive the next trial, what they really needed to win (the design patents) they lost and in a retrial Koh will struggle to keep out prior art again - so they stay lost. And worst of all, there will be no product ban in place for the 2 years it takes getting to retrial and certainly no chance of a rolling ban with new products waved onto it by a protectionist judge.
Meanwhile Google are busy compiling the mother of all prior art databases...
I suspect Samsung is dancing with glee at the possibility of a retrial.
"realise how absurd software patents really are."
The sad part is most folks won't understand and therefore won't care one way or another. It will be a classic case where the eyes glaze over and the words just run into one another until it sounds a bit like a distant passing train.
They should stick the retrial on Judge Judy. I'd pay to watch Judge Judy verbally bitchslap both Apple and Samsung
Don't they have some relationship with a search engine to help them?
I think they may have scanned a few books too.
for their citizens to realise how absurd software patents really are.» Yes, indeed ! And if they want more empirically-based information on what patents are doing to research and innovation, they might do well to read the aptly titled Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper, The Case against Patents, by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis. As noted there :
«In the long run, though, even the positive partial equilibrium effect [of increasing to the monopolistic level the profits of the successful innovator] may be more apparent than real: the existence of a large number of monopolies due to past patent grants reduces the incentives for innovation as current innovators are subject to constant legal action and licensing demands from earlier patent holders.»
But of course, the Reg's «executive editor», who knows so much more about this sort of thing than anyone else, living or dead, would, on the basis of his vast experience, dismiss this analysis as the product of know-nothing «freetards»....
"Don't they have some relationship with a search engine to help them?"
The most important thing is they went public with the project and invited anyone to join in. The world isn't all searchable online yet.
I'm still occasionally trying to track down a future pocket PC mockup printed in a UK computing mag around the early 90's that covers everything Apple are currently claiming to own. The slab shape, the rounded corners, grid of icons, apps, touch screen, *built in phone* etc. Only differences were zero hard buttons and a full surface display... both of which Apple will attempt to claim for it's own before long! Can't find it anywhere online and I'm gradually working through decades of paper in case I kept that issue.
If there is one thing that upsets a judge more than anything else it is bringing the legal system into disrepute. If this guy did lie, did mislead the jury etc then I would not like to be in his shoes.
Judges, quite rightly, believe it is imperative to maintain the integrity of the courts. Apple and Samsung deserve another trial if the allegations are true, this muppet should pay for it.
It's having the finger of blame pointing at them!
If you read the transcript of the questioning of the prospective jurors by the judge, you'll see that whilst she explores the one case that Hogan does reveal, she immediately moves on without checking "And were there any other lawsuits you've been involved in?". Hogan may defend his apparent lack of candour by claiming that he wasn't given the opportunity to reveal the earlier cases.
Hogan has already attempted to defend his lack of candour by claiming the Judge only asked for cases in the last ten years. The transcript not only shows this isn't case, it has an answer from a different juror detailing a case in 1998.
Sorry I didn't get chance to read the transcript :-) I was boarding a plane and didn't fancy the rubber gloving, words with friends style ;-) I get the feeling that lawyers everywhere will be nursing a semi in anticipation of all the fees resulting from this!
You missed the comment where the bloke said "Samsung wanted me on the jury, duh, they wanted me there in case they lost so they would have reason to mistrial!".... guys a bit of a tool.
The link is in the article itself, check groklaw.net
It was by John Grisham and it was called The Runaway Jury but it was about tobacco. Makes sense of the quick verdict, everyone probably didn't care and wanted to go home, he gave them a reason to think they were doing the right thing. Yet more evidence that in some cases a jury simply isn't the best way to decide guilt.
A jury trial is a bit of a nonsense in this sort of case. They're hardly peers of the global mega corps and it's just the sort of delicate far reaching decision you want entrusted to a panel of unbiased judges who are capable of reasoning for themselves.
I think if anyone has to foot the bill for a retrial it should be the court for not ascertaining the guy's background and putting forward a jury incapable of making a just decision.
"unbiased judges who are capable of reasoning for themselves."
Is there such a thing?
a trial isn't really to find the truth - it's to settle disputes...as i read (errm, somewhere) the "legal truth" is just a byproduct of the settlement mechanism....
Is there such a thing?
Richard Posner, probably
The story is few days old but the reporting from El Reg is excellent.
The entire trial looked like a farce but not it's beyond sham. It puzzles me how the foreman decided to lie about the question, adding the "whole ten years" when a transcript is readily available. The dude likes to be in the limelight and that's all?
... that dropping the soap would be a bad idea. But perhaps the lightbulb moment could be arranged to arrive just after he tries to pick it up, for that full "look what you did to this trial" experience.
Oh, sorry. Just realising that I'm cross-posting this from an article in summer 2013, after the judge arranges new state-funded accommodation for him.
Fandroids just can't accept their favourite phones are iphone wanna-bes and their makers lack the innovation that apple has in designing great products.
But I guess if you are forced to buy a cheap iphone clone that is plagued with malware and sends off too much personal info to an advertising company then you'd want it to look nice.
What a ridiculous post. This article is about a possible mistrial in a patent case, and nothing to do with whether one phone is 'better' than another. But hey ho, given the reduction in comprehension shown by many register posters over the last couple of years, it's hard to be surprised.
reduction in comprehension
inability to understand
Sorry, just making sure they can comprehend your post!
You really should pull you head out of that warm dark place. Android owners choose 'Droid for a number of reasons - None of which relate dircetly to this story - heres a clue - Get someone who is all grown up to sit you on their knee and read it with you - and maybe help you understand some of those bigger words.
You really are a coward - but maybe what we really need is an "Anonymous Troll" User mask as well, it would describe posts like this so much better!
and hide behind anonymity. You, sir, are a douche bag.
Apple is not an innovator. It is a good integrator of available technology and an outstanding polisher of the products they develop. It remains to be seen how long this survives the passing of Steve Jobs, who by all reports was the central driver in this.
Let the downvoting begin.
"... and an outstanding polisher of the
productsturds they develop."
Now they've lost the goose that lays the golden egg.
hmm, what you have there is a wit of the purest fuck!
(Fix required) "...but maybe what we really need is an "Anonymous Tool"
No worries, glad I could help ;-)
But... Apple make use of Seagate drives as well? I don't see how, if the foreman is prejudiced against Seagate, he would have a bias either way in the trial as both companies work with his former employer.
This smacks of Samsung clutching at straws. Further evidence that these lawsuits will never, ever end. Future generations in 200 years will still be contesting the results and holding appeals and retrials without any knowledge of why...
(there's a cherry thought to get your Friday morning started :) )
> This smacks of Samsung clutching at straws
Not really. It strikes me as more of a lever to open things up so that their real beef can get heard.
But even if you are right, enough straws eventually break the camel's back.
Apple also use Samsung chips, and chips fabbed by Samsung.
Anyways did you miss the big bit about Samsung being the major shareholder in Seagate?
Whether he's got a grudge against Seagate or not isn't the only point of the question. The question is raised to determine who has a potential bias. If he's been in a patent suit before as either plaintiff or defendant, he's likely to be biased, and as such, excluded by one side or the other from the jury pool with cause*. When he didn't truthfully and fully answer the question from the judge he opened the pathway for Samsung to rightly request a new trial. What, by his own admission, he did in the jury room only further strengthens Samsung's plea that they be given a new trial.
*Sometime it may take them a while. I've only ever been called for one jury pool. One of the guys who was called should have been dismissed by the judge after about the 4th question (real estate case, he knew multiple realtors including some tangentially involved in the trial, was constantly giving police statements because he was an EMT and EMTs wind up doing a lot of that, etc. etc. etc.), but was actually called to be seated before the lawyers realized what had happened. Then one of them raised an issue and he was removed from the pool. I'm guessing both sides assumed the other was going to disqualify him and as a result neither did until the very end. Oh and I think the judge asked the questions the same way Koh did: no time frame for when you knew/did something that potentially raised an issue.
The juror's motivation is not, in the end, at all important. The jury room behavior he and others described, however motivated, was over the limits.
what I don't understand is that it seems pretty simple for samsung to point out that he fed incorrect assumptions to the jury , but rather than going after his recent actions/statements they're targeting his past.
all I can hope for is that samsung's lawyers know what they're doing and this is the best option they have, but honestly I have a tough time believing that he's held a 15+ year grudge against seagate that he extended to samsung when they acquired seagate stock.
I always thought a jury was drawn from the public in some semi-random way, but just the candidacy of Hogan to the jury (before you even get to approval or rejection) tells me that this is not the case. How is it that someone with that background happens to end up on a jury in the biggest patent trials yet?
First thing that came to my mind too...
What, you're surprised that a trial in an area well supplied with tech companies ends up with people who've worked for tech companies on the jury?
And, that most people still working in that area who haven't made enough money to leave or get excused from jury service probably feel they have been screwed by one or more large corporations.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017