or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung claims jury foreman's personal history tainted verdict
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung claims jury foreman's personal history tainted verdict - Page 2

post #41 of 114

The guy was asked if he had been involved in a lawsuit.  According to various digging eh has been involvedin 3.  He discussed one from 2008 and then they moved on.  There was never a prodding to ask if he had been in more.  The more damaging thing will be when people start focusing on his answers to some other questions.

 


SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY
THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.


Not to Hogan:

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK
IF YOU WOULD -- OBVIOUSLY YOU KEEP YOUR LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BRING HERE.
BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE
BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL AND NOT ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL PATENT
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

a later question to Hogan that, while not mentioning experience, seems to imply it as no other questions were asked since the previous quote:

NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.




These are all from the court transcript.  Arstechnica already has a few pages of comments and this is something getting a lot of discussion, altho there are also idiots claiming he lied b/c he didnt' talk about something they didnt' ask.  There was no demand to discuss ALL cases you had been involved in.

 

BTW, the significance of the above quotes comes when looking at his post trial interviews where it appears he used his personal beliefs on patents to possibly guide things along, as well as using his own status as a patent holder and his past trial experience over such for the same purpose.  This would appear to go against him telling the court he would only use evidence and instructions.


Edited by SSquirrel - 10/3/12 at 5:50am
post #42 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

Speaking of spelunking, I want to watch Batman Begins again, followed by The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.

Already seen them. Not sure what relevance they have here.
post #43 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm more inclined to think Samsung knew about this guy from the start but kept him on the jury to they could it as a (weak) chance to get the cad thrown out if they lost.

 

I think the evidence points at exactly that conclusion.

 

The day after (maybe it was even the day of) the verdict, the Samsung astroturfing army was already hitting the tech site forums, and who knows where else, with this tale of "jury misconduct". They didn't even need time to investigate, they already knew all about his history. If they thought it was a problem before the trial (and they probably knew about it then), they should have had him excluded from the jury, if they knew about it during the trial (and they certainly did), they should have asked for him to be replaced. Instead, they hit the ground running with this "story" immediately after the verdict was announced. It seems pretty clear they kept what they knew about him in their pocket, hoping they could pull it out if they lost and use it to nullify the result.

post #44 of 114

So?

post #45 of 114
When this first came out and the Foreman made his comments about being a patent holder I said Samsung lawyer screwed up by letting him on the jury. It is not the juror fault, anyone would use personal knowledge and experience when making any sort do decision in spite of the jury instruction say. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
post #46 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

When this first came out and the Foreman made his comments about being a patent holder I said Samsung lawyer screwed up by letting him on the jury. It is not the juror fault, anyone would use personal knowledge and experience when making any sort do decision in spite of the jury instruction say. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.

 

 

Sharing a post I just made on Ars:

 

CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!! Someone should follow and see if there is a money trail between this guy and Samsung. Imagine if Samsung found out about this guy and knew of his strong patent beliefs and paid him to play it safe to get on the jury and then guide things in the jury room. Then post trial to say the things he did. It would be some real brilliance (which is the opposite of what we have seen from Samsung's lawyers, which is what makes it so far-fetched) to set themselves up w/a potential juror misconduct.

Note: I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's something that occurs as a possibility

post #47 of 114
Same outcome if there is another trial...
post #48 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

When this first came out and the Foreman made his comments about being a patent holder I said Samsung lawyer screwed up by letting him on the jury. It is not the juror fault, anyone would use personal knowledge and experience when making any sort do decision in spite of the jury instruction say. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.

Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. He then went on to add fuel to the fire by stating an incorrect interpretation of "prior art". Then he went further, telling the interviewer he convinced the rest of the jury to accept his incorrect explanation so they could ignore prior art completely. According to him it wasn't applicable at all and the jury accepted what he had to say since he was their "expert" on patent matters. 

 

It may not rise to the level of verdict dismissal worthiness, but if he had just kept his mouth shut this may never have come up at all. He called attention to himself, his opinions, and how he personally swayed the jury, in the loudest voice possible.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. He then went on to add fuel to the fire by stating an incorrect interpretation of "prior art". Then he went further, telling the interviewer he convinced the rest of the jury to accept his incorrect explanation so they could ignore prior art completely. According to him it wasn't applicable at all and the jury accepted what he had to say since he was their "expert" on patent matters. 

 

It may not rise to the level of verdict dismissal worthiness, but if he had just kept his mouth shut this may never have come up at all. He called attention to himself, his opinions, and how he personally swayed the jury, in the loudest voice possible.

 

There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's. 

post #50 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

The guy was asked if he had been involved in a lawsuit.  According to various digging eh has been involvedin 3.  He discussed one from 2008 and then they moved on.  There was never a prodding to ask if he had been in more.  The more damaging thing will be when people start focusing on his answers to some other questions.

 


SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY
THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.


Not to Hogan:

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK
IF YOU WOULD -- OBVIOUSLY YOU KEEP YOUR LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BRING HERE.
BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE
BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL AND NOT ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL PATENT
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

a later question to Hogan that, while not mentioning experience, seems to imply it as no other questions were asked since the previous quote:

NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.




These are all from the court transcript.  Arstechnica already has a few pages of comments and this is something getting a lot of discussion, altho there are also idiots claiming he lied b/c he didnt' talk about something they didnt' ask.  There was no demand to discuss ALL cases you had been involved in.

 

BTW, the significance of the above quotes comes when looking at his post trial interviews where it appears he used his personal beliefs on patents to possibly guide things along, as well as using his own status as a patent holder and his past trial experience over such for the same purpose.  This would appear to go against him telling the court he would only use evidence and instructions.

 

^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.

post #51 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's. 

 

Pay no attention, that's just GG, doing his PR spin thing that he comes here to do.

post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

What does that even mean?

It means the messenger is not responsible for the content of the message, but the author is responsible for the message content.  "Don't shoot the messenger" does not apply in a situation where the author is the one being "shot".

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #53 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

What does that even mean?

Figures....

post #54 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleGuy View Post

Is Samsung trailing after the jury? Are they the Korean Mafia? Are they trying to bump off the jury? 


Absurd.

post #55 of 114

Whether Samsung has a case here or not, Mr. Hogan is guilty of being a blabbermouth.

post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over..... BLAH BLAH....

In the US, jurors are generally allowed -- under commonly accepted norms -- to talk about the case after the verdict (except with the lawyers involved, plaintiffs, and defendants). I don't know what the law in CA specifically says, but here is an excerpt from the general jury etiquette descriptions from the state in New England in which I live (underlining mine):

 

When can I talk about a case in which I participated as a juror?

Once a jury has returned the verdict in a case, the jurors are permitted to discuss the trial, verdict and deliberations with anyone they wish, other than the parties and their attorneys. No attorney, party involved in the case, or any person acting for them, is permitted to interview, examine or question any juror or member of the juror’s family for a period of 30 days after jurors have completed their jury service. After that time has passed, communication is permitted. However, jurors are not required to discuss any matter concerning their jury service with anyone unless they wish to do so. Jurors should let the court know if they are contacted within the 30 day period or if anyone has asked them questions or made comments that were calculated to embarrass or harass the juror or to influence his or her actions in future jury service.

post #57 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Seems like a tenuous chain of connections. How likely is it that he knew about the lawyer from the old case being married to a partner of the law firm in the new case?
Is this man currently employed? What was his cost to be on the jury? How much length and cost would he go over that amount of money 19 years later?
Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.

 

Exactly.  19 years is a hell of a long time.  If I were sued I doubt I would remember the name of the attorney 5 years after the fact, and I certainly wouldn't know who he or she was married to.

 

And the fact that Samsung and Seagate are "strategic partners" is relevant how?  I doubt that was mentioned at trial.

 

This sounds little different from "19 years ago Joe ran over this guys cat; Joe worked for 7-11 and married Mary. Mary works at Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart and 7-11 both sell stuff, so this guy should be ineligable to be on a trial involving Wal-Mart."

post #58 of 114
Are these American attorneys or Korean? They seemingly try to "save face" (we can't lose this) by uncovering their own "mistakes" (why are they bringing this up now and didn't during jury selection). Whether American or Korean attorneys... it's Samsung. What can we do? Boycott their other products. No fridge, washer, TV, camera from them anymore!
If they suddenly sell 50,000 fewer fridges in the coming year....that appliance division will come down hard on Samsung's mobile group.
post #59 of 114
You lost!! Pay and shut up and come out with your own ideas. Make a sweet phone that has a holographic player and people will buy that instead of the iPhone.
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.

You lost your credibility when you couldnt understand a simple reply and had to ask "What does that even mean?".  Now you are suddenly able to extract information easily from a transcript of the proceedings and try to draw conclusions from them.  Did you suddenly  get smarter?

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #61 of 114

I think Sammy (Samesung, Samscum) knew this guy's history. They had a weak case and was looking for a way to have an appeal when they lost.

post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In the US, jurors are generally allowed -- under commonly accepted norms -- to talk about the case after the verdict (except with the lawyers involved, plaintiffs, and defendants). I don't know what the law in CA specifically says, but here is an excerpt from the general jury etiquette descriptions from the state in New England in which I live (underlining mine):

 

When can I talk about a case in which I participated as a juror?

Once a jury has returned the verdict in a case, the jurors are permitted to discuss the trial, verdict and deliberations with anyone they wish, other than the parties and their attorneys. No attorney, party involved in the case, or any person acting for them, is permitted to interview, examine or question any juror or member of the juror’s family for a period of 30 days after jurors have completed their jury service. After that time has passed, communication is permitted. However, jurors are not required to discuss any matter concerning their jury service with anyone unless they wish to do so. Jurors should let the court know if they are contacted within the 30 day period or if anyone has asked them questions or made comments that were calculated to embarrass or harass the juror or to influence his or her actions in future jury service.

Thanks for the details. I've never doubted that jurors are permitted to comment on the trial after the fact. They'e also not required to.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. He then went on to add fuel to the fire by stating an incorrect interpretation of "prior art". Then he went further, telling the interviewer he convinced the rest of the jury to accept his incorrect explanation so they could ignore prior art completely. According to him it wasn't applicable at all and the jury accepted what he had to say since he was their "expert" on patent matters. 

 

It may not rise to the level of verdict dismissal worthiness, but if he had just kept his mouth shut this may never have come up at all. He called attention to himself, his opinions, and how he personally swayed the jury, in the loudest voice possible.

 

How is he "anxious"? Did he offer himself to all the news outlets? Or were they knocking on his door? With all the media attention this trial was getting, and the court room filled with press, it's obvious that numerous people would have been scrambling to talk to him. This happens after any big trial in the US. And like those other trials, the questions asked by the press are never exactly the same as what was presented to them in court, often resulting in different answers. This does not mean jurors made the wrong decision or they changed their mind.

 

Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.

 

 

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but they started with 70+ jurors. Through questions they removed jurors until they got down to the final 18. Then Samsung and Apple were allowed to ask questions to remove 4 jurors each to get to the final 10. I'd REALLY like to know which 4 jurors Samsung removed, and what questions they asked them to make them think they were more important to remove than Hogan.

 

I'm convinced Samsung knew about Hogan and left him in the jury on purpose. Even their questioning of him seems very carefully worded for just this possibility. Seriously, asking if he can keep his patent experience out and judge on the facts?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

It means the messenger is not responsible for the content of the message, but the author is responsible for the message content.  "Don't shoot the messenger" does not apply in a situation where the author is the one being "shot".

 

Really?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.  

 

The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.


He should have never been in the trial

 

Apart from the last sentence, which is opinion, cycomiko is just stating the facts as they stand. If telling the guy to "go play on an android forum" because you don't like those facts isn't 'shooting the messenger', then what is?

post #65 of 114
If Samsung's accusations fit then the judge must acquit.
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.

Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?

 

FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.

"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "

 

He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".

 

IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/3/12 at 8:47am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

You lost your credibility when you couldnt understand a simple reply and had to ask "What does that even mean?".  Now you are suddenly able to extract information easily from a transcript of the proceedings and try to draw conclusions from them.  Did you suddenly  get smarter?

 

Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?

post #68 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tania View Post

Is this not libel what Samsung is doing?
Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

 

Not libel if the person is on court records saying one thing, while evidence shows another.

 

 

It's not libel either way.  Libel is defamation through written words.  Generally, the courts require 1) Proof the statement or statements is/are false, 2)  The statements were malicious in nature.  While I think Samsung's claim is utterly ludicrous and desperate (what else is new?), their statements about the foreman are not false.  Whether they are malicious or not is immaterial, but it's a tough case to make.  Even if the statements WERE false, the foreman would have to prove intent to harm his reputation (and he'd have to show actual and future damages).  

 

So, yeah...another ridiculous action by Samsung, who just can't stand losing despite everyone in the world believing that they copied Apple's products, whether legally or illegally.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

The guy was asked if he had been involved in a lawsuit.  According to various digging eh has been involvedin 3.  He discussed one from 2008 and then they moved on.  There was never a prodding to ask if he had been in more.  The more damaging thing will be when people start focusing on his answers to some other questions.

 


SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY
THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.


Not to Hogan:

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK
IF YOU WOULD -- OBVIOUSLY YOU KEEP YOUR LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BRING HERE.
BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE
BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL AND NOT ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL PATENT
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

a later question to Hogan that, while not mentioning experience, seems to imply it as no other questions were asked since the previous quote:

NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.




These are all from the court transcript.  Arstechnica already has a few pages of comments and this is something getting a lot of discussion, altho there are also idiots claiming he lied b/c he didnt' talk about something they didnt' ask.  There was no demand to discuss ALL cases you had been involved in.

 

BTW, the significance of the above quotes comes when looking at his post trial interviews where it appears he used his personal beliefs on patents to possibly guide things along, as well as using his own status as a patent holder and his past trial experience over such for the same purpose.  This would appear to go against him telling the court he would only use evidence and instructions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.

 

 

Ridiculous.  There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions.  Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here.  They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit.  It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question.  And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 114
"I am in no way defending Sadsong Samsung on this, but this story begs the question. Why in THE world did Hogan grant an interview in the first place?"

My thoughts exactly. I've been on a two juries - rape and dealing drugs (and delivered "guilty" verdicts in both cases). As we left the courthouse, reporters swarmed around us asking how we each voted, what evidence persuaded us, etc. I just kept walking to my car; I was selected as a juror, and that chapter of my civic duty was closed - end of story.
post #71 of 114
Apple Insider apparently did not do sufficient research for this article. The transcript of juror questions is available and was among the evidence Samsung cited. There's no mention of ten years. He was asked if he'd "ever" be involved in such a dispute.

Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?

This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.

Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.

And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.
post #72 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

 

Ridiculous.  There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions.  Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here.  They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit.  It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question.  And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.   

 

When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things.  His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this.  The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are.  His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable.  From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further.  I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.

 

Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter.  I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.

post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?

I lost mine when I replied to you.  I was truly trying to answer your question, however you revealed yourself in subsequent posts and are no longer of any importance.  Go ahead and have the last word, I will not see it or reply to it.  You've made it to my block list in near record time.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?

 

FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.

"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "

 

He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".

 

IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.

 

Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.

 

Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #75 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robre View Post

Are these American attorneys or Korean? They seemingly try to "save face" (we can't lose this) by uncovering their own "mistakes" (why are they bringing this up now and didn't during jury selection). Whether American or Korean attorneys... it's Samsung. What can we do? Boycott their other products. No fridge, washer, TV, camera from them anymore!
If they suddenly sell 50,000 fewer fridges in the coming year....that appliance division will come down hard on Samsung's mobile group.

 

 

Why is nationality of the lawyers important in this case?

 

This just brings out your xenophobia and even perhaps racist thinking.


FYI, Samsung's legal firm is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, an AMERICAN firm if that settles your jimmies.

 

Those who use the nationality card have no better comeback. Use logic and reasoning in your arguments, not superficial, quite frankly, childish arguments.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

 

Ridiculous.  There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions.  Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here.  They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit.  It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question.  And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.   

 

In the court of law, any prejudice, bias or favoritism undermines the entire judicial process. The mear perception of bias is enough to rule it a mistrial.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things.  His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this.  The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are.  His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable.  From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further.  I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.

 

Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter.  I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.

Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.

 

That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.


Edited by Galbi - 10/3/12 at 10:20am

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.

 

Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".

Since I neither try to roil the waters with flame posts nor personally attack other members your definition of a troll seems a tad unique. Quite honestly your own post seems to better match the description of one a troll might write, tho I've seen a lot worse. ;)

 

IMO it's plain he was relishing the spotlight, and yes for his own gain either in stature or money or both as I suspect Bloomberg paid him for his interview. So I'm not backtracking at all. I was making it clear I never implied he went looking for an interview. He may or may not have. But it's clear to me that he thought he was benefiting personally by granting several of them, at the minimum stroking his ego and at the worst getting a few bucks in his pocket. It's also my clear opinion that it would have been better if he had avoided an interview in the first place.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/3/12 at 10:28am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Apple Insider apparently did not do sufficient research for this article. The transcript of juror questions is available and was among the evidence Samsung cited. There's no mention of ten years. He was asked if he'd "ever" be involved in such a dispute.
Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?
This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.
Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.
And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.

 

Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").

 

Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.

 

That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.

 

Sorry, I had just wanted to clarify.  I tend to be a pretty strong Apple supporter.  I'm just reviewing what I can see of the facts and trying to lay them out in as neutral a way as possible.  I was just trying to cut off any response that would just fall back to "Go away Android boy" or some crap like that, which is funny considering I have a 4S and my wife and I only use Apple products currently heh.  I think the one Samsung thing I have is the TV her parents bought us.

post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").

 

Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

 

Page 7, line 20 is where it all starts.  There are also other questions following that, including the bits I quoted earlier.  Inkling slagging on AI for posting what Hogan said about teh 10 year and not doing more research is kind of silly.  The initial AP pieces just have what he said too.  They don't take the time to dig thru 200 pages of court documentation.  Once the news is out, other people go back and dig deeper.  That's how news works.  AI rarely does any research on their own.  Hell, they usually just reword what DIgitimes says :)  They don't really have any journalistic integrity, so yelling at them for that is amusing to me.

post #80 of 114

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:11pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung claims jury foreman's personal history tainted verdict