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.
Thread beginning with comment 537469
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Clutching at straws
by saso on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 20:50 UTC in reply to "Clutching at straws"
Member since:

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

The question here isn't the correctness of the conclusion, but its reliability. If there were procedural errors along the way (as seems to be the case), then the outcome of the case cannot be relied upon and it should be retried.

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.

If you dig deep enough, you can find dirt about anybody on nearly any topic. Now I'm not claiming Samsung or Google are innocent here, all I'm saying is that I'm unsure about whether the jury's verdict was arrived at via due process.

Another fact of the matter, that even you must admit to, is the fact that Apple didn't re-invent the phone, no matter how much they claim to. Much of the tech existed before and Apple simply found a nicer way to market it. That is not to say that they haven't contributed anything, but I simply think that what they have contributed doesn't warrant such wide protection as they claim they deserve.

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.

People copy all the time from each other, that's how culture and technology advances. We all stand on the shoulders of those that went before us. The larger question in most people's minds about this trial (in general) is whether protecting monopolies on some rather vague ideas is going to help advance society or not.

Reply Parent Score: 5