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 545738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Nelson,

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[7]: Corrupt Court
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:30 in reply to "RE[6]: Corrupt Court"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Trials have a clear process, and its the job of the Judge to move the ball forward. Samsung had plenty of time to present the prior art using the correct process to do so, but didn't. That's their bad.

If there were no order in the court, these things would drag on for far longer than they have. If (hypothetically speaking here) just being right were enough to win cases, then lawyers wouldn't need to exist.

Samsung's lawyers should have known better, but didn't. Or so the narrative goes. It could be that they're just raising this issue because they lost.

I'm not completely insensitive to Samsung's requests, but I'm increasingly wary about the demonization of the Jury.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:48 in reply to "RE[7]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Nelson,

"Trials have a clear process, and its the job of the Judge to move the ball forward. Samsung had plenty of time to present the prior art using the correct process to do so, but didn't. That's their bad."

Actually I think they did, but the judge barred it? I don't have the energy to continue our debate, I'm just going to try to agree to disagree. Great, this saves us a lot of time doesn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 2