What next he was biased against Samsung as a friend once owned a Samsung telly that developed a fault. Or he once got bitten by a Snake and both have S's. Come on.
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 …
How about instead of posting snarky pish you go read some factual sources on just how much this guy has actually fucked up the trial?
If Samsung knows all this about him then why did their side accept him? Sounds like they intended to use the juror as a get out jail free card so I'd turn down their request.
Because they found out about this after the verdict. Though apparently apple knew beforehand and despite legal precedent kept quiet about it... Hey, just joining in the "conjecture is fact" feel of this thread!
Interesting question, and exactly the same one (in not so many words) that Apple asked Samsung. Apple wanted to make the point that if Samsung didn't know until after the trial then it was THEIR responsibility to have found out.
Samsung have answered that they did not know beforehand, and now they are demanding the same of Apple since either Apple did know before the trial and did not volunteer material facts, or, like Samsung, they did not investigate Hogan because - as Samsung said all along - there was no reason to. Surprise surprise, Apple don't want to answer, and now Samsung is asking the court to compel Apple to disclose the info.
The following is from Samsung's motion to compel:
"Samsung will respond in due course in its reply to this remarkable and untenable suggestion that it should have extra-judicially investigated a sitting juror’s bankruptcy despite its lack of relevance to any question asked on voir dire. But in order to have a full and fair opportunity to reply to Apple’s “waiver” argument, Samsung is entitled to know when Apple first learned of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed Seagate litigation, including whether it knew of Mr. Hogan’s misstatements to the Court prior to Samsung’s post-trial motion and nonetheless concealed that knowledge from the Court. Apple’s answer to that question is relevant both to whether Apple complied with its obligation to disclose known misrepresentations to the Court and whether a reasonable litigant in this case should have discovered Mr. Hogan’s untruthfulness sooner than Samsung did. Apple has refused to disclose this information despite Samsung’s request. Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court compel Apple to disclose when it first learned of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed Seagate litigation....
"If Apple knew that Mr. Hogan’s statements were untruthful all along and stood silent in order to gain a tactical advantage from the seating of a biased juror, Apple’s misconduct would itself warrant sanction and relief and certainly must be disclosed. If, on the other hand, Apple, like Samsung, did not know that Mr. Hogan had been untruthful until after the verdict, that is relevant evidence that Samsung’s reliance on the presumptive veracity of Mr. Hogan’s voir dire responses during trial was reasonable. Apple cannot fault Samsung for not discovering juror untruthfulness while refusing to disclose whether and when Apple itself discovered this untruthfulness."
In fact, both Apple and Samsung had to age with the jury before staring this case. Both samsung and Apple could object against the jury that was chosen, and both agreed all was in good order.
Samsung both Apple did know the background of all people. Samsung was just stupid enough to not verify each and every person when they could.
I am sorry to say for all fanbois, but samsung had it' chance to object but they didn't do so. May be they where just to confinsed that they would win so it didn't matter? Who know...
Understanding fail. Go read up some more.
That's basically Samsung's argument.
Apple has said, "You should have known beforehand! You probably did and you didn't tell anyone." On that basis the Jury's history should not be a valid argument for a mistrial (i.e. it's Samsung's own fault).
Samsung, in response, produced a signed affidavit saying they didn't know (lawyers lying to the court is pretty serious). In turn, they have said, "OK Apple: when did you figure it out? If you knew before the trial, then you had an obligation to tell the court as this was obviously a potential source of bias. If you didn't know beforehand, then is is reasonable to expect us to have done something that you didn't?"
It's not that they're accusing Apple of anything: they're merely attempting to neutralise Apple's argument and keep there appeal alive.
Bias is not the main argument
The guy may or may not have been biased but the more substantial problem is that he has publically stated that he advised the jury on what was or was not valid prior art, and that this made a big difference to the jury. His stated criteria for the prior art was totallly, laughably wrong, going completely against the Judges directions and common sense for anyone with any sort of technical background.
Samsungs main defence was prior art so his intervention removed any chance (IMO) of samsung receiving a fair trial. The judge in this case doe snot seem to have been very even handed and judges are rightly reluctant to use jury conduct to overturn verdicts so we will hav to wait and see.
National Bias as well?
I am sure SOMEONE must have brought out this fact before, but it really does beg the question...
Apple is a US based company correct? And one of the most valuable companies in the world blah blah blah.
Samsung, based out of South Korea is now challenging a US based company in the mobile phone business and doing quite a good job of it too!
Putting aside jury bias...is it possible....just POSSIBLE that there is a lot of country bias as well in this regard? US court favours their own home based business especially due to the failing economy? Who knows...perhaps I am stating something obvious and already discussed into the ground, but it sure does make one wonder when in other parts of the world, Apple is being handed their ass in some other cases. The UK case comes to mind.
Re: National Bias as well?
Not quite as big a wanker as someone who comes on here and makes multiple ill thought out and churlish anonymous posts, all bigging up Apple, all claiming Samsung deserved to lose and none with any valid, sensible point.
Let me guess, are you posting from the united states of "patent a rectangle"?
So what now
Its often been argued that in a jury trial, you're depending ln the wisdom of a group of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. This case shows both that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that having juries deliberate behind closed doors, opens the way to a huge miscarrage of justice.
Whether or not the result should have been different in this case is immaterial. What matters was that it looks very likely ( assuming this retard is telling the truth in interviews, and that other jurers followed his lead ) case of a ridiculously unfair trial. Even if Samsung should have had that verdect returned, it shouldn't be from an unfair trial.
What is the way forward? What are the advantages of the current jury system that we want to maintain, and what are the problems with it. How would you address those problems, while maintaining the advantages, and indeed requirements?
Personally I think a court official should observe all deliberations, and intervene if the jury are misbehaving. This court official would be a few feet away from the deliberators, and communicate only in writing. He/she would be able to nip trivial transgressions in the bud, with a reminder of the jurys obligation/judges orders, would refer more serious cases to the judge, and would report at the end on whether or not the jury followed correct procedure.
Sammy, please move on. You copied stuff from apple, and now you have to pay, also be glad that the judge didn't ask you to put. Note on your website like the childish judge in the UK did.
I'm lovin' your posts...
...only because of the responses they get. What you say is complete an utter crap and you know it, but your intention in posting them is working: people are taking the bait. lol.