or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
A federal court has agreed to investigate whether the foreman of the jury in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement suit concealed information during the jury selection process.

Judge Lucy Koh issued a filing this week to say she would "consider the questions" as to whether Velvin Hogan didn't disclose important information about his past, according to CNet. Samsung has complained that Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, which has a "substantial strategic relationship" with Samsung.

Samsung first lodged the complaint about Hogan in October. The Korean technology company asserted that Hogan, who filed for bankruptcy in 1993 because of his litigation with Seagate, may have colored the final verdict that went in Apple's favor.

Now, Koh will hold a hearing on Dec. 6 to determine whether Hogan concealed information, and whether that constituted misconduct among the jury.

Velvin Hogan

Apple v. Samsung jury foreman Velvin Hogan. | Source: bayarea.com


"An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson," Koh wrote in her filing.

Author Greg Sandoval noted that during voir dire in Apple v. Samsung, Hogan did, in fact, disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner. The foreman also noted that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all lawsuits he's been involved in.

The jury ruled in August that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patented inventions. It awarded Apple nearly $1.05 billion in damages.
post #2 of 59
Great. Post-trial voir dire.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 59

This will come to nothing. Samsung knew his past when they allowed him on the jury. The only one concealing anything was Samsung's lawyers, who kept this in their pocket, hoping to use it later, in the event of an adverse result.
 

post #4 of 59

It's not only his past that Samsung is attempting to call into question but his incorrect interpretations of the law and how it influenced the jury. I don't expect them to be successful, but they won't be accused of not trying.

 

"Finally, Mr. Hogan’s self-reported conduct during the jury deliberations presents the “reasonable possibility” that extraneous material “could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2000). In post-verdict interviews with the media, Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel” (Estrich Decl. Ex. N), that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different” (id. Ex. M), that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable” (id. Exs. L, N), and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use (id. Ex. O). These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room.See Hard, 812 F.2d at 485; Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851, 853, 855 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1530-33 (11th Cir. 1984); Casanas v. Yates, 2010 WL 3987333, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) (approving for cause dismissal where juror “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”).

For all these reasons, Mr. Hogan’s conduct during voir dire and jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing with all jurors and can be cured only by a grant of new trial."

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 59
If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #6 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.

And if Apple had lost many here would be condemning Mr. Hogan.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 59
Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?
post #8 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.

Well of course. Do you know of instances where a winning defendant asked for a new trial due to juror misconduct? lol.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?

That's really funny. Of course you're entirely right. Big corporations need to be made to understand that they are not above the law.

 

The best example is Apple itself. Read this Judgement from the UK Court of Appeals. There are some real gems in it.

post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?

That's really funny. Of course you're entirely right. Big corporations need to be made to understand that they are not above the law.

 

The best example is Apple itself. Read this Judgement from the UK Court of Appeals. There are some real gems in it.

post #11 of 59

UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

 

Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.

post #12 of 59

That the court got it's robes all wadded up when Apple quoted them regarding relative "coolness"?

post #13 of 59
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

 

Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.

 

Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #14 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

 

Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.

 

Colin Birss in his judgement used the sentence "They are not as cool".

 

What is the very clear, very precise legal definition of "cool"?

 

Does it use the literal meaning of:- at a lower physical temperature?

 

Was the Judge resorting to some sort of slang, which doesn't seem very professional at all.

 

So not really "very understandable", at all.


Edited by hill60 - 11/9/12 at 3:03pm
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.

 

Hero Hogan(TM) came along and alone convinced the jury to not invalidate Apple's patent(s) based on his own misunderstanding of the law.  Period.  

 

The potential grudge against Samsung could be a problem as well.

post #16 of 59
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
Hero Hogan(TM) came along and alone convinced the jury to not invalidate Apple's patent(s) based on his own misunderstanding of the law.  Period.  

 

Except no, since that hasn't been ruled on and probably isn't the case anyway.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #17 of 59

I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.

 

The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 

 

Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.

 

I'd just like to make 2 points.

 

1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-ass isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.

   but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 

 

"

 

  1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

"

 

2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.

 

Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.

 

You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.

 

Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.

 

But it sure is entertaining. :-)

post #18 of 59
What's funny is Hogan himself has publicly stated he thinks Samsung left him on the jury intentionally just for this possibility. Very smart man as he seems to understand a lot of what's really going on.

What I want to know is what do the other jurors think? To me that's more important than what Hogan said. Even if he has bias, how did he convert all the other jurors to his way of thinking? Did he bully them, of did they agree with what he said because they honestly felt it was right?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #19 of 59
The outcome is not only determined by what information Hogan discussed, but what the jury instructions were, where Hogan got his information (if he did his own legal research, then the jury would be tainted), how the discussion actually went, the give and take within the jury room.

I look forward to the hearing and learning more.
post #20 of 59
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
What's funny is Hogan himself has publicly stated he thinks Samsung left him on the jury intentionally just for this possibility. Very smart man as he seems to understand a lot of what's really going on.

 

That's what Samsung is really objecting to; him being smart enough to see through their pathetic ruse.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Even if he has bias, how did he convert all the other jurors to his way of thinking? Did he bully them, of did they agree with what he said because they honestly felt it was right?

 

I doubt he needed to do much bullying.  I bet the jurors were practically begging him to lead them through all the legal jargon and technical mumbo jumbo discussed in the courtroom so that they could just be done with this and go home.

post #22 of 59

Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials.  Justice would slow to a crawl.  Can you imagine?   If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want.  With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want.  Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.  

post #23 of 59
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post
Wow, if Samsung forces a mis-trial from this, this would set a bad precedent for future jury-decided trials.  Justice would slow to a crawl.  Can you imagine?   If you don't get the verdict you want, you simply question all the jurors later-- and question them to death-- until you get the answer you want.  With 12 members on the jury, I'm sure it would be easy to find an answer you want.  Then you can present this to the judge and wait for a re-trial.  

 

Or purposely let jurors on that you believe will rule against you, let it happen, and then point out the biases that qualified said jurors in your mind in the first place! It's a win-win.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

The outcome is not only determined by what information Hogan discussed, but what the jury instructions were, where Hogan got his information (if he did his own legal research, then the jury would be tainted), how the discussion actually went, the give and take within the jury room.
I look forward to the hearing and learning more.

 

Tainted?

 

Like Samsung's thinly veiled attempts to taint the jury by releasing disallowed evidence to the media, in some vain hope that some of the jury would disregard instructions and be exposed to the news.

 

Evidence that was disallowed mainly due to the Samsung legal team's failure to comply with the rules of the court in a timely manner.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And if Apple had lost many here would be condemning Mr. Hogan.

Sure, but so what? The "many here" you refer to did not examine Mr. Hogan under void dire. Samsung's attorneys did. My point is that they decided after losing that they didn't like this jurist, but they were OK with him when the trial started.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #26 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.

You forgot to interject the word "badly" the words Samsung and the word copied.  

 

At least get the verbiage correct.    LOL.....

post #27 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.

 

The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 

 

Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.

 

I'd just like to make 2 points.

 

1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.

   but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 

 

"

 

  1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

"

 

2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.

 

Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.

 

You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.

 

Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.

 

But it sure is entertaining. :-)

The order by the court was stupid to begin with. Apple makes their product first, Samsung, being a Supposed business partner/component supplier goes behind their back and basically copies Apple and Apple is supposed to suffer for it?

Screw Samsung.  I won't ever buy a Samsung product for several reasons.  I don't think they make good products.  Their compent division might fabricate decent semiconductor chips, mostly because they use the latest mfg equipment made by other companies, but that's about it.

 

Samsung to me is just a cheaply made hunk of garbage and they don't really do anything other than try to emulate other companies original designs and throw in some useless features and bribe people into selling them.  

post #28 of 59
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
You forgot to interject the word "badly" the words Samsung and the word copied.  

 

At least get the verbiage correct.    LOL.....

 

I badly copied their bad copying. 

 

Too meta? 

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.

 

The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 

 

Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.

 

I'd just like to make 2 points.

 

1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.

   but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 

 

"

 

  1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

"

 

2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.

 

Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.

 

You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.

 

Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.

 

But it sure is entertaining. :-)

The journalists that are slamming Apple are Windows and/or Android users.  It's been like that for years.  Nothing new. In fact, some of these journalists are STUPID idiots with a journalism degree but no real IT background other than posting stupid articles.

post #30 of 59

What's dumb is the media hasn't latched on to the notion how Microsoft is forcing their users to change to an X Box Operating System GUI and calling it Windows 8.  Talk about sheep.  Yes MIcrosoft, we will follow you, even if you use the X Box GUI.

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I badly copied their bad copying. 

 

Too meta? 

hahahaha.

post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I badly copied their bad copying. 

 

Too meta? 

At least you aren't forcing people into using the X Box GUI and calling it Windows 8.  That's even worse. 

post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.

 

The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 

 

Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.

 

I'd just like to make 2 points.

 

1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-**** isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.

   but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 

 

"

 

  1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

"

 

2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.

 

Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.

 

You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.

 

Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.

 

But it sure is entertaining. :-)

Any most of this stuff is forgotten months later.  People still buy Microsoft stuff even after that company was slammed every other day for Anti Trust violations so bad, they should have actually split MIcrosoft into two companies and had Gates, Ballmer and their lawyers taken out.

post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

 

I doubt he needed to do much bullying.  I bet the jurors were practically begging him to lead them through all the legal jargon and technical mumbo jumbo discussed in the courtroom so that they could just be done with this and go home.

 

The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

The jurors were highly intelligent. There were engineers and other "technical minded" people on the jury, so your attempt to make it appear it was comprised of Hogan and a bunch of easily swayed hicks is asinine.

There's a list of the jurors and their occupations if you Google it. They might not be as technically minded as you think. One managed a bike shop, one worked for a city, another was a HR consultant. There was also a social worker, one electrical engineer, one who worked in a network dept and two who were unemployed. One of them mentioned experience testing lunchbox quality.

FWIW juror interviews following the trial do credit Mr. Hogan for their understanding of the patent process (none had any experience with them besides Hogan) and particularly for his help in getting the rest of the jury to understand that prior art didn't apply to the patent validity claims, which of course isn't true. Read the interviews for yourself to get some idea of the influence Mr. Hogan held with the jury if you're in doubt.

None of this means Samsung will be at all successful with their claims of juror misconduct. The court will not spend much time with Samsung's claims, nor take it very seriously IMO based on what I've been reading about it. At the same time denying that Mr. Hogan might be singularly responsible for the jury's misunderstanding of how prior art affects patent claims and their subsequent and erroneous failure to consider validity would be equally "asinine".

 


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/9/12 at 6:34pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

What's dumb is the media hasn't latched on to the notion how Microsoft is forcing their users to change to an X Box Operating System GUI and calling it Windows 8.  Talk about sheep.  Yes MIcrosoft, we will follow you, even if you use the X Box GUI.

Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.

If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.

$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Microsoft are a close enemy of Apple who are slamming Google/Motorola through the courts, sort of a quasi tag team alliance.
If Microsoft get the courts to approve their latest offer of $1.2 million a year for Google's FRAND encumbered standard essential patents, then things will become so much easier for Apple on this front.
$1 per iPhone, pfft Google will be dreaming if Apple offer that much next time.

I think you meant to post that in a different thread Hill.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's a list of the jurors and their occupations if you Google it. They might not be as technically minded as you think. One managed a bike shop, one worked for a city, another was a HR consultant. There was also a social worker, one electrical engineer, one who worked in a network dept and two who were unemployed. One of them mentioned experience testing lunchbox quality.

FWIW juror interviews following the trial do credit Mr. Hogan for their understanding of the patent process (none had any experience with them besides Hogan) and particularly for his help in getting the rest of the jury to understand that prior art didn't apply to the patent validity claims, which of course isn't true. Read the interviews for yourself to get some idea of the influence Mr. Hogan held with the jury if you're in doubt.



None of this means Samsung will be at all successful with their claims of juror misconduct. The court will not spend much time with Samsung's claims, nor take it very seriously IMO based on what I've been reading about it. At the same time denying that Mr. Hogan might be singularly responsible for the jury's misunderstanding of how prior art affects patent claims and their subsequent and erroneous failure to consider validity would be equally "asinine".



 


I have googled it. There were three others besides Hogan who would be considered well above most people in terms of understanding technical matters. I never heard of an electrical engineer, my understanding is there was a software engineer and a mechanical engineer.

Why do you claim "matter of factly" that Hogan was wrong with prior art? I followed the case and their examples to me (as a software engineer myself) did not prove prior art at all. It seems to me Hogan got that part right.

What I want to find out, and nobody seems to know, is which members Samsung and Apple picked to leave the jury pool (they got 4 each). The guy with 120 patents didn't make it as well as several other engineers who had patents. Why were they excused but Hogan allowed to stay?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.

 

The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 

 

Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.

 

I'd just like to make 2 points.

 

1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-ass isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.

   but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 

 

"

 

  1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

"

 

2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.

 

Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.

 

You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.

 

Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.

 

But it sure is entertaining. :-)

 

It is obvious that that judge was more concerned with being in the limelight, hence his childish "punishment".  I question the qualifications of any judge when he resorts to using words like "cool" in his comments, then cries like a baby when those same words are used against him.  He deserved to be made a fool of and was made a fool of, no matter that Apple eventually complied with the ruling.  The appeals court only went along because they had to save face or is it teeth in the UK?  Like so many media whores, he will probably release a "memoir" of some sort and hit the talk show circuit as well, like the other 15 minute baffoons.  Apple has won more than they have lost, and it is not hurting their profit margin at all.  They may win some and lose some along the way, but profits will be fine.  That's what happens when you make great products. You build a following and a trust that no idiot British judge can damage.  Only Apple itself can ruin that trust by putting out substandard products, and it is not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what the spec monkeys say.  When Apple has to rely on BOGO promotions and Best Buy rebates to sell a product like other companies, then you will know that the trust has been broken.  Until then, no worries for Apple.

post #40 of 59
His background made him knowledgeable of the industry and some patent law and for that Samsung wishes to lambaste him? How absurd.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple