Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 13:47 UTC
Legal "Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy.
Permalink for comment 537455
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Clutching at straws
by Tony Swash on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 18:10 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:

Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?

The fact of the matter, unless one's perception is clouded by prejudice, is that there was a lot of evidence that clearly favoured Apple. There was ample evidence that Samsung had explicitly discussed, planned and implemented a deliberate strategy of mimicking Apple and Apple's products, and that partners such as Google as well as internal Samsung managers had raised concerns about that strategy.

Some people reacted to the verdict as if it was perverse but frankly most such people would have reacted in the same way to that verdict no mater what volume or quality of evidence supporting Apple had been presented. A lot of the reaction to the verdict was not based on a rational and objective analysis but started from the premise that any win by Apple was wrong no matter the circumstances.

This issue raised by Samsung may or may not do them any good, the verdict may or may not be overturned as a result, but we should be under no illusions, this is just a clever wheeze by Samsung's lawyers to get the clients off. That is what clever lawyers do and that is the way the system works. But whatever the outcome the trial revealed, through the evidence it made public, that Apple were right to assert that Samsung had copied their products. One may have an opinion about what Samsung did and whether it was right or wrong, but the facts are not really in dispute anymore.

Reply Score: -8