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 3

post #81 of 114

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:11pm
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics.  And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #83 of 114

Four jurors raised their hands when asked about whether they had any patents. Mr. Chiu, Ms. Halim, Mr. Okamato and Mr. Hogan. After that another juror Mr. Tempan also said he had 125 patents.

 

 

Mr. Chiu's questioning:

 

WELL, SINCE THE MICROPHONE IS DOWN THERE,

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD PLEASE AND GIVE THAT TO

MR. CHIU.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I WORK FOR -- I WORK

FOR THE NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR BEFORE AND THEY WERE

ACQUIRED BY TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, AND I FILED PATENTS

FOR THE COMPANY.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND WERE YOU AN

INVENTOR ON THAT PATENT?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: WAS A PATENT ISSUED?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: AND WITHOUT SPECIFICS, WHAT

WAS THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT IS THE INTEGRATED

CIRCUIT RELATED.

THE COURT: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK FROM 3 TO 15

YEARS. I HAVE SEVERAL PATENTS.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE SEVERAL. AND WERE

THEY ALL WHILE YOU WERE EMPLOYED AT NATIONAL

SEMICONDUCTOR?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: AND ARE THEY ALL RELATED TO

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND -- OKAY. ALL

RIGHT. AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY 15 YEARS AGO?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, FROM 3 TO 15

YEARS.

THE COURT: 3 TO 15 YEARS. OKAY. SO

VERY RECENTLY.

DO YOU HAVE PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING

NOW?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: YOU DO. OKAY. ALL WITHIN

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: -- FIELD?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: RIGHT.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WOULD THAT

IN ANY WAY -- YOU'LL BE INSTRUCTED ON WHAT THE LAW

IS AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS

I GIVE YOU ON THE LAW, EVEN IF IT MAY NOT

COMPLETELY CORRESPOND TO WHAT YOU MAY KNOW ABOUT

THE PATENT SYSTEM OR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

LAWS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, I FOLLOW YOUR

INSTRUCTIONS.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

 

 

Ms. Halim's Questioning:

 

OKAY. LET'S PLEASE START WITH MS. HALIM.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: OKAY. I HAVE TWO

PATENTS. ONE IS ISSUED WHEN I WAS AT WEITEK, ALSO

I.C. DESIGN.

ANOTHER ONE WAS AT SILICON GRAPHICS.

THE COURT: AND IT WAS ALSO ON I.C.

DESIGN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, RIGHT.

THE COURT: OKAY. WERE PATENTS ISSUED?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: AND YOU WERE THE INVENTOR ON

BOTH?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING

FROM THAT EXPERIENCE -- BASICALLY YOU OBVIOUSLY

WILL BRING YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE TO YOUR ROLE AS A

JUROR, BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SET THAT ASIDE,

YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PATENTS, AND DECIDE

THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE LAW AS YOU'RE

INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING

THE TRIAL?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.

 

----they came back to Ms. Halim and asked these as well------

 

THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME ASK MS. HALIM,

HOW LONG AGO WAS YOUR PATENT FOR SILICON GRAPHICS

AND HOW LONG WAS YOUR PATENT FOR -- DID YOU SAY

WAYNE TECH?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: WEITEK, YES.

THE COURT: WEITEK, HOW IS THAT SPELLED?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: W-E-I-T-E-K.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. HOW LONG

AGO WERE THOSE TWO PATENTS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: FOR WEITEK, IT WAS IN

THE LATE '90S -- LATE '80S.

THE COURT: OKAY.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND FOR SILICON

GRAPHICS, IT'S MID-1990S.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY

PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING NOW?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.

THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

 

 

Mr. Okamato's Questioning:

 

LET'S GO TO MR. OKAMOTO, PLEASE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO A COUPLE OF MY

PROJECTS AT GOOGLE INVOLVED, I THINK THE FIRST

PATENT WAS SOME TYPE OF VIDEO U/I LAYOUT.

THE COURT: UM-HUM.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND IT WAS ME AND

SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM. SO IT WAS SO-AND-SO

THAT WAS ONE.

THERE'S ACTUALLY -- I THINK I FILED A

FEW. I'M NOT SURE IF I REMEMBER ALL OF THEM IN

DETAIL, BUT MOSTLY RELATED TO VIDEO PRESENTATION

AND BEHAVIOR.

THE COURT: SO THEY'RE ALL USER INTERFACE

PATENTS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE TIME

PERIOD?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO I STARTED

GOOGLE -- IT'S WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, MOSTLY

ABOUT SIX TO SEVEN YEARS AGO.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND PATENTS HAVE

ISSUED? HOW MANY?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ONE HAS ISSUED AND

THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT'S GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW

IS WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE NEW FEATURES IN THE

LATEST ANDROID DEVELOPMENT.

THE COURT: THE OPERATING SYSTEM?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YEAH.

THE COURT: UM-HUM.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO THAT ONE IS FAIRLY

RECENTLY, A FEW MONTHS. THE OTHER ONES ARE FAIRLY

OLD.

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.

 

 

Mr. Tempan's Questioning:

 

AH, ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO -- LET'S GO

TO MR. TEPMAN. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS

PATENTS.

THE COURT: CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE,

PLEASE? THANK YOU.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE

PATENTS, I HAVE 125 PATENTS.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE 125 PATENTS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: IN WHAT FIELD?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: PHYSICS,

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, ROBOTICS.

THE COURT: AND THESE ARE ALL ISSUED

PATENTS; CORRECT?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ISSUED. AND

PENDING, PROBABLY THREE.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE THREE PENDING?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ABOUT.

THE COURT: ROUGHLY WHEN WERE THESE 125

PATENTS ISSUED?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I STARTED EARLY '90S

AND UNTIL RECENTLY.

THE COURT: AND FOR WHOM DID YOU -- DID

YOU ASSIGN YOUR RIGHTS TO THESE PATENTS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ASSIGNED

TO -- IT'S ALL APPLIED MATERIALS.

THE COURT: OH, APPLIED MATERIALS, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

WHAT ABOUT MR. TEPMAN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK SO, TOO.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

 

 

Mr. Hogan's Questioning:

 

THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN. YOU HAD SOME?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: EXCUSE ME. IN 2002,

I FILED FOR A PATENT IN VIDEO COMPRESSION SOFTWARE,

AND IN 2008, THE PATENT WAS ISSUED TO ME.

AND IN 2008 I FILED A FOLLOW-ON PATENT IN

MORE DETAIL AND THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING.

THE COURT: I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

 

 

How come they asked the other 4 patent holding jurors several questions about patents but didn't ask Mr. Hogan a single question?

 

 

Mr. Hogan was again questioned on a different matter:

 

NOW, THE NEXT QUESTION, HAVE YOU EVER

BEEN ACCUSED OF TAKING AN IDEA FROM SOMEONE ELSE?

WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.

WOULD YOU PLEASE PASS THE MICROPHONE,

MR. TEPMAN? THANK YOU.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AS I HAD STATED

EARLIER, THAT WAS -- IN 2008, THAT WAS THE

ACCUSATION AGAINST ME BEFORE THE PATENT WAS ISSUED.

BUT AS I SAID, THAT CASE ULTIMATELY WAS

DROPPED IN MY FAVOR.

THE COURT: NOW, WHEN THE PROGRAMMER SUED

YOU, WAS THAT PROGRAMMER ALSO A CO-INVENTOR ON THE

PATENT?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.

THE COURT: NO. I SEE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PATENT WAS ISSUED

TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.

THE COURT: I SEE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND I HAD FILED FOR

THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE EFFORT TO WORK

FOR IT. THAT WAS PART OF MY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING

THAT IT WAS MINE.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

 

 

So Mr. Hogan raised his hand when asked if he had been accused of taking someone else's idea. From where I'm sitting, a person who has been accused of taking someone else's idea would be a prime candidate for dismissal from a jury on a case that's about stealing ideas.

 

I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #84 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 so they could it as a (weak) chance to get the case thrown out if they lost.


Google/Samsung knew. That two tier search engine at Mountain View...one for the commons, one for inside trackers only...worked overtime to peer into that guy's past before sending him...vanity first... out on a suicide mission. But I would add one essential qualifier to this forlorn hypothesis.

The guy wasn't meant to be Google/Samsung's scapegoat as the optimal defendant's outcome. His past...from a big corporation perspective...as a hot-head, 'know-it-all' litigator, was deliberately thrown as red meat to the simple commonality of a sampled jury. This jury was sown from the get-go with the seeds of mistrust and ego thumping from the wide discrepancies of knowledge and wherewithal within the jury's ranks. Such a mix rarely works in building a consensus, ...let alone unanimity. Specially extremely high-profile litigation in a Civil Court.

This was planned to end up as a mistrial on a chronical absence of unanimous views towards crucial points of interpretation. It sure wasn't foreseen as a demonstration of quintessential consensus building under the leadership of the one person in the whole lot who was perceived, and planted by the defendant as a lone wolf in the flock.

That guy, digging deep into his technophilic humanity, beat...like a nine-headed hydra...the inside tracker's odd of justice simply crumbling over a jury's ego-driven indecisiveness. That sort of moral ascendancy, the defendant surely did not foresee. Virtues, for them to be witnessed onto others, need the eyes of a beholder...or two...

From now on, ...the defendants will try to impose their overt interpretation of what constitutes a weak link as the next layer of their defense strategy. They obviously aim to bury the guy's credibility in putting him on a public trial as a career manipulator, ...and as an Apple proxy. And as we all know from the Maps happenstance, Google has no peers on the Web and in the Press to mount a ruckus at a moment's notice, and out of somewhere deep down Google/Samsung militarized zone. They feel they own the Web...and the Press, ...and in some mischievous ways...they do.
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.

 


I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.

 

Yes, he is an odd person to leave in when he was clearly passionate about ownership of ideas.

 

I have to say that when he spoke to the press after trial he sounded as if he was the man who swung the decisions based on this personal experience and that struck me as odd.  I expected the jurors to be more individual in their decisions.

 

Oh well, whether Samsung win or loose was never going to change things really.  Both Apple and Samsung will continue to sell boatloads of phones.

post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

go play on an android site.

 

Why? Because I said that this was coming?  Who would have thought a business would be defending themselves against paying out a billion, using whatever methods they could, Including the foreman's inappropriate media commentary.

 

 

Wow so shocking.  I must be an android supporter. 

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #87 of 114

According to the transcripts, the man lied....  This is reason enough to get the verdict thrown out...  period...

post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.

 

looks like some of AI'ers are starting to realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now.  I believe each side had 3 votes.


Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing.  Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.  


Edited by tooltalk - 10/3/12 at 12:43pm
post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics.  And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl. 

;) 

 

By the way, a quick perusal of your past posts doesn't show much in the way of positive input or new ideas, simply some ridicule and name-calling for the most part. Neither of those require much thought.

 

We already have an ample supply of members who are willing to fill the role of egregious troll (do a web search if you're not familiar with the term). Rather than join that crowd why not challenge yourself? Spend a little more time to form a cohesive argument disputing something I've written. If that's too big a challenge to start with then pick any worthy post from anyone, then explain why that member is incorrect in your opinion. Put some real thought into it.

 

Any 16 year old high school kid is skilled in the art of "punking", but no one other than another 16 year old respects them for it. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/3/12 at 1:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

looks like some of AI'ers are starting realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now.  I believe each side had 3 votes.


Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing.  Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.  

 

Apple isn't using Hogan as an excuse to overturn the verdict - Samsung is. Therefore they should be the ones who are scrutinized for their decision to to remove Hogan.

 

Samsung's lawyers aren't stupid even though some things they do may seem like it. I believe all the decisions they made were caclulated for a specific reason. From letting Hogan remain to "leaking" evidence to the media that Judge Koh excluded. Even running out of their allocated 25 hours of court time leaving Apple a few hours to question witnesses without cross-examination. Samsung knows exaclty what they're doing - leaving several back doors slightly ajar hoping they'll be able to open one later on.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #91 of 114
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

Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?

I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So Mr. Hogan raised his hand when asked if he had been accused of taking someone else's idea. From where I'm sitting, a person who has been accused of taking someone else's idea would be a prime candidate for dismissal from a jury on a case that's about stealing ideas.

I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.

Not at all.

If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.

Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

Another example of your passive aggressive tendencies, thanks dude. You win the inner webs today, now finish eating that hot pocket and go outside. 

That went right over your head apparently.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #94 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?

I made that mistake too when i first read the "guilty after one day" quote.  I thought that the jury was suspect if they decided after one day of the trial.  But if you go back and read it in context, he was stating they "knew Samsung was guilty after one day" of deliberations.  Although this was still quick, it doesn't cast doubt on the jury.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #95 of 114

^ This.

 

I can't remember how many times some idiot on some forum thought that the jury decided Samsung was guilty after the first day of the trial, not after the first day of deliberations.

 

I've also heard people say that it would be impossible for the jury to answer all 700 questions in such a short time. Well, they weren't 700 individual questions, they were groups of questions that were repeated over for each of the 20 something devices that were accused of infringing. In effect, there were not that many questions to answer and after they worked through them once it would be easy to pick up each subsequent device (which they had in the jury room to examine and use) and quickly go through the same set of questions again.

 

It's truly amazing how many stupid theories people come up with just because they don't like Apple. It's like talking to 9/11 truthers, people that believe the Queen is an alien lizard or that we're all going to die in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not at all.
If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.
Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.

 

I think there are more options than the two you presented.

 

First off, he never really "stole" ideas - he had a company and a programmer worked for him. The programmer thought he should have part ownership of the idea and Hogan said it belonged to the company. Hogan stated they settled out of court and the lawsuit was dismissed. The settlement was never discussed so we don't know if Hogan paid money or if the programmer just dropped it.

 

So Hogan could have "stole" the idea and paid the programmer off. This is not the same thing as Hogan "getting away with it" as any payout Hogan might have made is an expense he suffered from his "stealing" the idea. Or the programmer could have made a license deal such that if Hogan made money from the future sale of the patent that he'd get a portion.

 

The fact is we don't know any details of Hogan's settlement with his programmer. This means Hogan is a wild card that neither Samsung nor Apple could count on to benefit their side.Someone who's a "wild card" seems an automatic choice for removal simply because nobody knows the details of his case.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

I made that mistake too when i first read the "guilty after one day" quote.  I thought that the jury was suspect if they decided after one day of the trial.  But if you go back and read it in context, he was stating they "knew Samsung was guilty after one day" of deliberations.  Although this was still quick, it doesn't cast doubt on the jury.

Ah. OK, thanks.
post #98 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?

 

Their trying to divert attention away from their less-than-steller attorneys.  Those are the guys Samsung should be suing.  Aren't there 11 other members of the jury who had a say in the verdict?  While I too would be doing anything I could to avoid paying the $$ and the bad publicity, this comes off as grasping at straws. 

post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

 

Which is exactly what voir dire is for.

 

This is no one's fault but Samsung's "legal team" (to use the term loosely).  They didn't do their job properly, and now they want someone else to take the fall.  Sorry, but that's not how it works.  "I effed up at trial, can you fix this for me judge?" isn't an actual post-trial argument.

 

you mean when somebody fails to answer the questions from the judge correctly? If so, then its entirely within the legal right of samsung to use this to their advantage.  Apple could have also gone through the entire background of this jury, and noticed that inclusion of this juror could ultimately be an issue for the case.  IF the judge agrees with Samsung, then all apple has achieved is an expensive lawsuit with no outcome.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Why do you keep posting rubbish from an irrelevant site?

 

Their "fifteen minutes" was over with SCO's last legal action.

 

There is nothing left there except the rantings of some disaffected fanboys.

 

I can't believe people still buy their spin.

 

P.S. it's blocking time for you.

 

You mean a website that is hosting copies of the official court documents?

 

Yes, obviously for some challanged people, the official court documents are utterly irrelevant.  .  


Well done on blocking me, must be easier than using some grey matter.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #101 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?

 

 

I believe so.  He was the guy who said he helped turn the jury around by teaching them about prior art.  It was a rather odd commentary. 

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #102 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Dear Samsung:

This is called a "jury trial" and is meant to allow cases to be tried by a jury of one's peers, a random representation of the citizens of the jurisdiction. I hate to tell you, but this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. You see, what you thought you could do is come in, grab a dozen moronic Americans who knew nothing about patent law and get away with your shenanigans. But here we have a true American. One who's worked hard and been sued by big corporations. Someone who knew a thing or two about how this stuff works. It's not called "tainting", it's called "learning from experience" and passing that on to his peers on the jury.

I just can't even stand what you are doing and it is a mockery of the American judicial system and of justice everywhere. I know you are butthurt over losing and now you are denying that maybe, just maybe you run your business in a very unethical way. You rail against Apple and it's customers as "sheep", and yet that's exactly what you want this jury to have been. You wanted them to not think for themselves or apply their own wisdom and experience to the case.

So please Samsung, go back from where you came. We don't need your cheap knockoffs anymore.

Jury misconduct is not acceptable, and what you describe is just that. What I find interesting is that Samsung is not, yet, arguing jury misconduct, but merely that hogan failed, in this part of the voir dire, to disclose more of his legal experience.

This is a weak argument, and not one which has any chance of succeeding in having the decision thrown out.

The fact that hogan, in an interview, discussed his interpretation of how to read a patent, and shared that with the other members of the jury is potentially jury misconduct, and it would result in a mistrial. It really depends on whether hogan's interpretation was correct, whether his interpretation was based on research he did outside of jury deliberations, the details of the jury instructions, etc.
post #103 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.

Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.

Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.

Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.
post #104 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.
Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.
Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.

 

Which other jurors held patents? I wasn't aware of any but that doesn't necessarily mean no others did. I'd be appreciative if you could name the others.

From an interview at CNET with one of the other jurors, Manuel Ilagan:

"The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

 

What reason did Mr. Hogan give the rest of the jury to convince them they could ignore prior art claims against Apple patents?

Quote: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there. VEL HOGANJury Foreman

 

But what is the definition of 'Prior art?

Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

So according to another jury member's explanation of how the verdict was arrived at so quickly, it certainly sounds as tho they were swayed by Mr. Hogan's personally-held and incorrect interpretation of the law, directing them to ignore prior art as a defense based on Mr. Hogan's experience as a patent holder himself.

So what parts did I misrepresent again? 


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/4/12 at 7:04am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 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..

My thoughts also. If they knew he was a patent holder himself they should have had him kept off the jury.

No matter what someone says in those kinds of questions, personal experience will be a factor. So you don't let admitted crime victims on such a jury and you don't trust patent holders to be unbiased in a patent trial

If the documents show that they knew the guy was a patent holder', had the means to excuse him and didn't, then they have no right to appeal because of him.

And I agree that if the lawyers weren't asking about personal patent experiences they were dumb and got what they desired in that point. They probably thought they could use the lack of 'knowing' as a reason to appeal if they lost. I hope they try it, get the appeal and lose again.
Edited by charlituna - 10/4/12 at 12:30pm
post #106 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Apple isn't using Hogan as an excuse to overturn the verdict - Samsung is. Therefore they should be the ones who are scrutinized for their decision to to remove Hogan.

 

Samsung's lawyers aren't stupid even though some things they do may seem like it. I believe all the decisions they made were caclulated for a specific reason. From letting Hogan remain to "leaking" evidence to the media that Judge Koh excluded. Even running out of their allocated 25 hours of court time leaving Apple a few hours to question witnesses without cross-examination. Samsung knows exaclty what they're doing - leaving several back doors slightly ajar hoping they'll be able to open one later on.

 

eh? Well, if Samsung's lawyers knew what they were doing, that crucial evidence, which was later leaked to the public, would not have been rejected in the first place (also note, a much greater number of Samsung's evidence/witnesses were rejected vs Apple's witness/evidence).

 

Furthermore, I don't think it's common for a member of the jury to run in a victory lap giving interviews as to how they came to such a biased verdict. After all, no other member of the jury came forth to speak (well, other than Manuel Ilagan). Seriously, all Hogan had to do was to say "no thank you" and avoid the spotlight as everyone else in the jury did.  Hogan's past trouble with Seagate wouldn't have been an issue had he kept his mouth shut.  Now, I don't see how Samsung's lawyer could have orchestrated all this - unless, of course, you believe QE lawyers played Jedi mind trick on Hogan. 


Edited by tooltalk - 10/4/12 at 6:04pm
post #107 of 114

This guy should have never been let on the jury.  Evidence seems to support the idea that he lied about his past as well, and other jurors cited that he influenced their decision.  

 

I'll be shocked if this doesn't get declared a mistrial.  

 

No matter which side of the issue you stand on, it's fairly obvious that the jury didn't play according to the letter of the law, and that they were swayed by Mr. Hogan.  And of course, everything came into the open when he gave Bloomberg an interview...

post #108 of 114
Quote:

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let’s continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

 

Mr. Hogan's statement to media post verdict

 

 

Quote:
“I answered every question the judge asked me [and Samsung] had every opportunity to question me. Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”

 

It's clear that the COURT's questions were definitely "open-ended" and with "no time constraints".

 

This is CLEARLY a mistrial waiting to happen.

 

Mr. Hogan was out for revenge.

 

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-denies-misconduct-suggests-conspiracy

"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 #109 of 114

I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO. With that said I personally believe it's very likely that Judge Koh will reduce the jury's award, perhaps significantly, and in any case expect an appeal and probably from both Apple and Samsung before it's all over.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Mr. Hogan's statement to media post verdict



It's clear that the COURT's questions were definitely "open-ended" and with "no time constraints".

This is CLEARLY a mistrial waiting to happen.

Mr. Hogan was out for revenge.

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-denies-misconduct-suggests-conspiracy

Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
post #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO. 

I agree with you there.  Although if I was Mr Hogan, I'd stop talking to the press right now as every time he opens his mouth (most recently just three days ago) he's making that hurdle lower and lower for Samsung.

post #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion

It's a tad closer than that, but not by a lot. Samsung is the majority owner of Seagate, the company that sued and won against Mr. Hogan. The Seagate lawyer in that case is the connection you mentioned. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion

 

You're not seeing the full picture about Samsung's involvement with Seagate.

"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 #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

You're not seeing the full picture about Samsung's involvement with Seagate.

That happened much later though. Different subsidiary, unrelated industry, new management. Assuming there is revenge, there's no way it would hurt anyone that did anything to him.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/5/12 at 11:30am
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