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 545677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Corrupt Court
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Corrupt Court"
Member since:

Here is what Judge Koh actually says on the matter in the linked document above:

"As an initial matter, it is not clear whether Mr. Hogan was intentionally dishonest. Neither party has conclusively shown whether Mr. Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the Court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit, or whether he believed that the answer he gave had sufficiently responded to the Court’s question. Further, it is not even clear that Mr. Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung. Mr. Hogan left Seagate’s employment in 1993, and his lawsuit against Seagate was nearly two decades ago. Further, as detailed above, Mr. Hogan repeatedly stated that he had no bias toward either party, and could be a fair and impartial juror. However, because the Court finds that Samsung waived its right to object to Mr. Hogan’s answer even if it was dishonest, no evidentiary hearing or factual finding regarding Mr. Hogan’s state of mind during that portion of voir dire is required."

"However, the statements cited by Samsung (Motion at 3) neither show that Mr. Hogan favored Apple nor show that he was being deceitful in voir dire. The statements Mr. Hogan made after the verdict only reveal his gratitude for being part of what he considered a “landmark decision.”"

"When Mr. Hogan commented on the damages the jury ultimately found in favor of Apple, he specifically stated that the “message” was “to the industry at large” and “not just Samsung.” Id., Ex. J at 1. This is consistent with Mr. Hogan’s repeated confirmation during voir dire that he did not have any bias toward either party, and could be fair and impartial. There was also nothing in the post-verdict statements on which Samsung relies that referred to Seagate, bankruptcy, lawsuits, or any other information Mr. Hogan allegedly concealed.3 Thus, Mr. Hogan’s comments cannot serve to trigger Samsung’s investigation obligations."

"Mr. Hogan gave several post-verdict interviews in which he recounted the legal standards that were utilized during deliberations to enable the jury to reach a verdict. See Estrich Decl., Exs. L, M, N, O. These statements, however, all pertain to what occurred during jury deliberations, or to the jurors’ mental processes – evidence specifically barred by Rule 606(b). Samsung does not argue that Mr. Hogan introduced any outside knowledge specific to the facts of this case."

"Samsung does not suggest that Mr. Hogan improperly consulted another source during jury deliberations, nor that he introduced any factual material whatsoever."

Edited 2012-12-18 17:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman Member since:

Yes I read what the judge had to say. But there were obviously some lies of omission about the earlier lawsuit, and more lies that would pan out in the course of the trial and would have been difficult to spot at the outset.

This judge said the court has no choice but to assume jurors will carefully follow their instructions. The deliberation process is protected such that all evidence from deliberations must be thrown out even when instructions were not followed. Maybe from a legal standpoint, the judge's hands are tied? (I doubt it, but I guess it's possible).

From a moral standpoint it's a perversion of justice that a member of the jury can intentionally lead others to apply faulty standards of patent law to send a message. Add that to his voir dire deceptions.

This is an extraordinary case. As I said before, even if you are pro-apple on the matter, hopefully you don't justify the jury practices that went on during this trial. I guess maybe to some, the ends will justify the means.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Corrupt Court
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Corrupt Court"
jared_wilkes Member since:

No, actually, you and Samsung have presented zero evidence of any lying whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Corrupt Court
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Corrupt Court"
Nelson Member since:

There is no evidence the Foreman lied. At all.

Samsung's own incompetence caused this. They didn't do their due diligence during the selection process.

I just find it extremely funny how delusional some people were about Samsung's prospects during this entire trial. I lied, some people still are delusional.

Apple has a much better chance of winning injunctions on appeal than Samsung does of winning an appeal.

The real perversion of justice is how Samsung, despite being found to infringe, willfully, and violate Apple's trade dress, was not handed injunctions across all the infringing devices.

A billion dollars doesn't change the fact that they illegally leveraged Apple's technology and trade dress to gain a foothold in the market which has netted them way more.

There is absolutely no way that will stand in an appeals court. I can imagine Samsung being granted sweeping injunctions which can easily be extended to apply to other devices.

Samsung right now, would be FOOLISH to not be frantically changing what they've been deemed to infringe. There really is little gain in playing these little stupid lawyer games (Jury Foreman was biased!!).

Reply Parent Score: 1