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 545697
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Corrupt Court"
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[6]: Corrupt Court
by MOS6510 on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:17 in reply to "RE[5]: Corrupt Court"
MOS6510 Member since:

But, but, but there must be because Samsung lost!

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

RE[6]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman Member since:


Believe it or not, it's not just about who won after the verdict came in. If samsung lost in a fair trial, then so be it. But everyone should at least be entitled to a fair trial, and this one was anything but. Even if you want to blame samsung for not picking up on Hogan's conflict of interest, there's no excuse for what he did leading the jury to apply his own legal standards after his personal "revelation" as to how to interpret patent law in this case. The entire preceding was handled exceptionally poorly, the judge even prohibited prior art that could invalidate apple's patents. The entire trial was a joke, this was all publicised well before the verdict came in, so don't anyone pretend this criticism is coming in only because of a disagreeable verdict.

If you believe apple would have won the trial no matter what, that's fine, but the way in which this trial was conducted and the partiality of the judge is never the less very disturbing.

If this case were between parties X and Y instead of apple & samsung, I doubt anyone would be nearly as eager to "support" the practices that were applied in this trial.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Corrupt Court
by Laurence on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 11:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Corrupt Court"
Laurence Member since:

You do realise that the only case Apple has actually won was that case.

Every other case Apple have lost. What's more, in the UK Apple were forced to publicly announce the Samsung did not copy Apple.

In the dozens of cases of Apple vs Samsung, Apple have only won one, and that was on Apple's home turf and with a massively biased foreman. Yet people like yourself ignore all of the above and just focus on this one verdict while proclaiming that everyone else is delusional for believing otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 2