Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Thread beginning with comment 545676
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:23 UTC in reply to "Jury qualifications?"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

saso,

I think Hogan, the foreman, was technically competent, but he certainly wasn't supposed to be educating the rest of the jury members by himself. When he explained how samsung's patents were invalid because they couldn't be interchanged on different CPU architectures (which we know is BS), and why apple's should hold, he disobeyed the court's instructions. Other jurors were interviewed after the trial and said the deliberations went much faster after applying Hogan's standards for patents.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:23 in reply to "RE: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The Court disagrees that Hogan disobeyed the Court's instructions.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Jury qualifications?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

"The Court disagrees that Hogan disobeyed the Court's instructions."

No, the judge simply dismissed activities that happened in deliberations under "Rule 606(b)". The incorrect legal methodologies applied were revealed to the press by Hogan and other juror members.

Reply Parent Score: 2