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 545710
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:18 UTC 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[6]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You willfully ignoring that "Even if" that you yourself quoted?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:00 in reply to "RE[5]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

To fully lay bare the ignorance or willful misinformation of your comments, here is your quote in context:

"Samsung does not argue that Mr. Hogan introduced any outside knowledge specific to the facts of this case. 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."

i.e. Koh isn't just saying it's inadmissible. Nor is Koh merely saying that Samsung didn't produce evidence of such outside knowledge... She's stating that Samsung didn't even have the balls to make the argument that you are claiming is made evident because Pamela Jones says so. So to recap: Samsung didn't even make the argument you claim is clearly in evidence because it was untenable, such "evidence" is inadmissable, and the Koh doesn't buy the argument that there were outside facts improperly used to sway the jury even if that argument had been made and the evidence was admissable.

Edited 2012-12-18 20:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1