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 545734
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:00 UTC 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

RE[7]: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Jury qualifications?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

For god's sake man, the post we're talking about is right here!
http://www.osnews.com/thread?545687

Your not talking about outside knowledge, your talking about following instructions. The judge concedes very clearly that any erroneous statements by Hogan during deliberations would have to be barred as evidence. She's taking a legal shortcut and claiming it doesn't matter whether the wrong instructions were following during deliberations because it's inadmissible as evidence anyways.

Therefor THE COURT DID ***NOT*** DISAGREE THAT HOGAN DISOBEYED THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS. The court chose to dismiss any such evidence without further consideration.

I'm going to save us both a lot of trouble here and just agree to disagree right now since I feel this isn't going to go anywhere.

Edited 2012-12-18 20:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 21:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25


For god's sake man, the post we're talking about is right here!


No shit, Sherlock, what do you think I'm quoting?


Your not talking about outside knowledge, your talking about following instructions.


I'm quoting the fuller quote that YOU quoted! Do you know what you are talking about?

The judge concedes very clearly that any erroneous statements by Hogan during deliberations would have to be barred as evidence.


Yup. Strange how Pamela Jones never explained that everything she has been harping on for several months and you continue to want to use is completely useless, huh?

She's taking a legal shortcut and claiming it doesn't matter whether the wrong instructions were following during deliberations because it's inadmissible as evidence anyways.


No, no legal shortcut. This is the law. But she doesn't limit her ruling to denying this "evidence", she provides further argument why Samsung's arguments do not hold whether or not this "evidence" was submitted. Hence, that big glaring EVEN IF in your OWN quote.

Therefor THE COURT DID ***NOT*** DISAGREE THAT HOGAN DISOBEYED THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS.


Yes, it did. Or rather it found that Samsung cannot support its contention that he lied or violated the Court's instructions. Regardless of whether or not Samsung can use post-trial statements.

I'm going to save us both a lot of trouble here and just agree to disagree right now.


Please do. I think people who even want the same things as you would agree you aren't helping yourself or the argument.

Edited 2012-12-18 21:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2