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 545700
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:56 UTC 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

RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, that is not all. Yes, Koh, correctly states that post-jury comments about deliberations are inadmissible, but she also never identifies a single action that occurred in deliberation to show that Hogan violated any jury instruction -- as she was very careful to go through each argument put forward by Samsung whether or not the alleged evidence put forth by Samsung was admissible or not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Jury qualifications?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

Now you are being dense. I know *she* doesn't identify the erroneous legal standards used during deliberation. Samsung *did* however, she just dismissed it outright as inadmissible.

"Even if the standards related by Mr. Hogan were completely erroneous, those statements would still be barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and cannot be considered in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing."


Your previous statement here is ignorant or dishonest, take your pick...
"The Court disagrees that Hogan disobeyed the Court's instructions"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

If post jury comments on deliberations are inadmissible in court, they might as well have never happened.

It makes no material difference.

Reply Parent Score: 2