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 537483
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Clutching at straws
by Tony Swash on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Clutching at straws"
Tony Swash
Member since:

The plot thickens.

One of the more notable documents filed with Judge Lucy Koh's court in the Apple versus Samsung post-trial motions is a letter from Apple intellectual property licensing director Boris Teskler to his equivalent at Samsung, Seongwoo Kim. The letter outlines a reciprocal patent agreement more in line with actual fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, rather than Samsung's proposed 2.4 percent rate of the entire device's purchase price.

Apple offered to license its FRAND UMTS patents, provided that Samsung "reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple." Apple's estimates placed the price at $0.33 per device per royalty for use of the Apple patent portfolio, with the rate applied "to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed." Apple requested a response by May 7, 2012, and no agreement was made.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Clutching at straws
by TechGeek on Thu 4th Oct 2012 03:29 in reply to "RE[8]: Clutching at straws"
TechGeek Member since:

1. That is an Apple document, and should be viewed as being written to be in their favor (obviously).

2. That document taken at face value is of little interest without knowing exactly what Apple is offering versus what the want Samsung to give up. Its seems fair on face value, until you consider that most of the IP Samsung holds is hardware based and part of this agreement, and much of what Apple is using to get injunctions is software patents NOT covered in this proposed agreement.

3. Patent law does not set any kind of standard on what FRAND is and specifies that the interested parties work out the details. Samsung does not give up any rights when adding patents to a standard.

4. One proposal that came to light during this trial also had Apple asking more for its patents than even Samsung is asking.

5. The jury found that Apple had NO proof that Samsung was negotiating in bad faith or refusing to negotiate.

Reply Parent Score: 5