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 - Page 2

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

 

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

 

 

 

Damaging their reputation? The only thing that folk will remember is the idiot judge saying that 'Samsung wasn't as as cool.'

 

And they'll forget that quickly enough too.

 

Still, if the judge is out to get headlines out of a exceptionally dull case, then Apple should stop obliging him. 

post #42 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.

 

 

Unfortunately, you're assuming that someone's day job is an indicator of how technically adept he/she is. You also didn't account for jobs they may have had in the past.

 

Most of them owned smartphones and tablets, four had worked for technology companies, two were engineers. And the most important fact is that Samsung approved all of them.

 

I know people with masters degrees who work as shop assistants. It doesn't mean they're not technically adept.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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".

 

 

Amongst other acts of desperation, Samsung tried to claim that a fictional tablet featured in the film '2001' should be considered prior art. They also claimed that this phone was the forerunner of the iPhone.

 

If Hogan convinced the jury otherwise then he was absolutely right. Bear in mind that Hogan and jury did not give Apple a win on the iPad because there was no registered trademark for it. Since this was a major part of the case then I really don't think Hogan is as bias as some believe him to be, and I don't think the jury is as lacking in tech-savvy as you seem to think they are.


Edited by Rayz - 11/10/12 at 3:37am
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

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.

It may seem obvious to you. You are entitled to whatever view you might like to have. It rather depends on your personal agenda and your view of what is right or wrong.

 

I do think it is rather silly, and doesn't really increase your credibility when you make such comments about on of the finest judges in the world. Sir Robin Jacob is not a leading judge in one of the highest courts in the UK simply as a political appointee, or because he likes to get in the newspapers.

 

Get a life ! Do you really, seriously believe what you are saying ? Do you really believe that a court of appeals judge is unqualified ? Simply because he calls Apple out for lying in court, for gaming the courts, and for behaving in an unethical manner ??

 

 I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

 

Apple has played loose and has been caught red-handed.

 

You may think that that is all fun and games. It depends on your values. It depends on what you think is "justice".

 

But the inescapable fact is that an increasing number of high courts in countries all over the world are beginning to wise up to the game that Apple is playing, and the way that they are trying to abuse the court systems all over the world to prevent competition and to defend a market position.

 

Just think for a moment. Apple is trying to destroy the reputation of a number of companies, accusing them of "Stealing" Apple's "Intellectual Property" ... while at the same time Apple itself doesn't hesitiate to steal the intellectual property of others .... like Motorola (the FRAND dispute) or the LTE Patents of VirnetX (the patent holding company), just to give a couple of current examples. There are others.

 

What this boils down to is that Apple is acting as if the laws apply to everybody except Apple. In the long run this will destroy Apple if they don't change. The comments of the UK court of Appeals could hardly be clearer than that. .... You obey the rules or you go down in flames.

 

Its that simple.

 

Now you may or may not like the law. You may or may not like the fact that a company can patent (in the US), "rounded corners" or "the rectangle", but unfortunately that's the way the law works at the moment. 

 

People estimate that a smartphone may incorporate "technology" covered by hundreds of thousands of patents. IF every individual patent was worth $1 per smartphone, then the market is dead. (and remember Apple wants $30 to $40 per device for their "rounded corners" and other trivial patents, but isn't prepared to pay a cent for the actual patents covering core technology that make communication by smartphone possible at all).

 

Go figure it out :-)

post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


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?

 

I think where you went wrong was expecting GG to not, as usual, be disingenuous. Of course he misrepresented the facts. That's what he does. But, don't be too hard on him, he's just trying to make a living.

post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
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.

Eric, it's certainly possible that most of the "facts' Hogan gave the jury on patents was accurate. The one statement that stood out like a sore thumb was his claim that unless the prior art being claimed to invalidate Apple's patents could directly run on Apple's OS, interchangable to use his word, then it didn't apply and all the patents claims were thus valid. According to interviews with two different jurors that was the reason the jury was able to ignore prior art claims against those patents, "in fact we skipped right over that" according to them.

 

Is that how you understand prior art as applying to patent claims too or was Mr. Hogan incorrect in his "facts" presented to the jury?

 

http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/10/juror-confusion-over-patent-laws-to-doom-apple-samsung-verdict


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/10/12 at 6:12am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 59

^ So you're basing their interpretation of prior art over a couple comments made to interviewers asking carefully worded questions?

 

Unless we have the entire jury transcript none of the comments made in public really have any weight.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ So you're basing their interpretation of prior art over a couple comments made to interviewers asking carefully worded questions?

 

Unless we have the entire jury transcript none of the comments made in public really have any weight.

They apparently had weight to you as you said Hogan was correct based on those interviews. I'm pointing out what was wrong based on those interviews.

 

With that out of the way I'll ask again: If Hogan's reported "facts" about prior art accurately presented what he believed to be true, was he correct?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 59

The test for jury misconduct is very specific, and usually very difficult to meet. Samsung's allegations don't even come close. 

post #49 of 59
^ So typical of your responses. I never once stated Hogan was right based on interviews - why are you making up things I said and then trying to prove those made-up responses as being false?

I said the outcome of the case based on evidence I saw presented at trial seemed correct to me. I have never taken any comments made in post trial interviews to try and argue merits of the case.

Unlike you and so many others who seem to think juror comments are just as important as what was said in private.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

Go figure it out :-)
I've figured it out - you're another troll who doesn't understand patents.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #50 of 59
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
I've figured it out - you're another troll who doesn't understand patents.

 

I think that anyone who signs up to a website with a fake e-mail address can pretty well have all their points invalidated.

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 #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ So typical of your responses. I never once stated Hogan was right based on interviews - why are you making up things I said and then trying to prove those made-up responses as being false?

I misunderstood you apparently. I thought you based your idea that Mr. Hogan was correct off his press interviews and not press reports, I suppose there's a difference somewhere in there. I guess it would be a waste of time to ask the same question of you a third time, huh?

 

You asked me Why do you claim "matter of factly" that Hogan was wrong with prior art?" I told you why and then asked what you thought based on that. You've not yet answered.

 

*If Hogan's reported "facts" about prior art accurately presented what he told the jury and what he believed to be true was he correct?


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/10/12 at 1:59pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

It may seem obvious to you. You are entitled to whatever view you might like to have. It rather depends on your personal agenda and your view of what is right or wrong.

 

I do think it is rather silly, and doesn't really increase your credibility when you make such comments about on of the finest judges in the world. Sir Robin Jacob is not a leading judge in one of the highest courts in the UK simply as a political appointee, or because he likes to get in the newspapers.

 

Get a life ! Do you really, seriously believe what you are saying ? Do you really believe that a court of appeals judge is unqualified ? Simply because he calls Apple out for lying in court, for gaming the courts, and for behaving in an unethical manner ??

 

 

 

Go figure it out :-)

 

So why aren't these Judges following the law and levelling contempt charges at Apple?

 

My opinion is they wouldn't stick.

 

These Judges are diminishing respect for their positions with their stupid face saving actions designed to do no more than uphold their old boy network.

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 #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So why aren't these Judges following the law and levelling contempt charges at Apple?

from the most recent order:

"As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order."

 

I can't see where contempt charges would be proper now. They've complied, even reportly removing the java-code that served to help hide their latest notice. I think Apple's in the clear as far as the court's order.

 

You can put a period at the end of that issue. It's over and old news.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/10/12 at 3:18pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 59

"So why aren't these Judges following the law and levelling contempt charges at Apple?

 

My opinion is they wouldn't stick.

 

These Judges are diminishing respect for their positions with their stupid face saving actions designed to do no more than uphold their old boy network."

 

Well, the Judges don't necessarily need to fire with the biggest calibre of weapons in the arsenal. They seemed to take the view that Apple was behaving like a petulant child, so they fired an unmistakeable warning shot and Apple's UK lawyers got the message loud and clear. 

 

What your opinion may be is, to put it politely, a matter of absolutely no importance to anyone except yourself.  It's simply not a matter of "levelling charges" or whether they "wouldn't stick". The fact is that the court may simply enter an order from the bench and impose basically whatever sanctions they feel appropriate. They already found three things.

 

1. Apple did not comply with the court order

2. Apple was intentionally trying to subvert the intention of the order

3. Apple was spreading lies and innuendo and advancing totally ridiculous arguments (14 Days to make a simple change to a web page ... I mean, its just insulting the intelligence of any reasonable person to spout such bullshit in a courtroom.)

 

When a senior appeals court judge says "I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."  is another way of saying "you are a pack of lying bastards and don't try that in my court again."

 

Then any sane Attorney would tell his client to shut up and behave like grownups.

 

They did, And Apple did shut up an eat humble pie. Hope they enjoyed the pie. We'll see them get a second helping soon enough. Losers !

 

I think you might be wise to remember that the Bench was not talking to the public. They were talking to Apple's Lawyers. In the English judicial system the lawyers know how to read between the lines. They got the message. Nuff said.

 

Nobody can challenge the legal system in the way that Apple tried to. The courts just won't stand for it, and believe me no amount of whining from Apple is going to get them out of doing what the court orders them to do. Not in the UK and not in the EU.

 

For anyone who knows a little about the english legal system, the fact that Robin Jacob cited a textbook written by his dad on the subject of the implicit power of the courts ... in 1970, is a howler. The lawyers who read that kind of sideswipe from a judge must be rolling on the floor laughing.

 

... apple behaved like some 16 year old brat who climbed into the ring with Muhammed Ali. :-). They got their butt spanked in public and everyone who'se opinion matters is laughing their heads off. (And the people who count are not you and me, but the judges. Like it or not, they have the full authority of the law. :-)  )

post #55 of 59
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

"So why aren't these Judges following the law and levelling contempt charges at Apple?


My opinion is they wouldn't stick.


These Judges are diminishing respect for their positions with their stupid face saving actions designed to do no more than uphold their old boy network."


Well, the Judges don't necessarily need to fire with the biggest calibre of weapons in the arsenal. They seemed to take the view that Apple was behaving like a petulant child, so they fired an unmistakeable warning shot and Apple's UK lawyers got the message loud and clear. 


What your opinion may be is, to put it politely, a matter of absolutely no importance to anyone except yourself.  It's simply not a matter of "levelling charges" or whether they "wouldn't stick". The fact is that the court may simply enter an order from the bench and impose basically whatever sanctions they feel appropriate. They already found three things.


1. Apple did not comply with the court order

2. Apple was intentionally trying to subvert the intention of the order

3. Apple was spreading lies and innuendo and advancing totally ridiculous arguments (14 Days to make a simple change to a web page ... I mean, its just insulting the intelligence of any reasonable person to spout such bullshit in a courtroom.)


When a senior appeals court judge says "I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."  is another way of saying "you are a pack of lying bastards and don't try that in my court again."


Then any sane Attorney would tell his client to shut up and behave like grownups.


They did, And Apple did shut up an eat humble pie. Hope they enjoyed the pie. We'll see them get a second helping soon enough. Losers !


I think you might be wise to remember that the Bench was not talking to the public. They were talking to Apple's Lawyers. In the English judicial system the lawyers know how to read between the lines. They got the message. Nuff said.


Nobody can challenge the legal system in the way that Apple tried to. The courts just won't stand for it, and believe me no amount of whining from Apple is going to get them out of doing what the court orders them to do. Not in the UK and not in the EU.


For anyone who knows a little about the english legal system, the fact that Robin Jacob cited a textbook written by his dad on the subject of the implicit power of the courts ... in 1970, is a howler. The lawyers who read that kind of sideswipe from a judge must be rolling on the floor laughing.


... apple behaved like some 16 year old brat who climbed into the ring with Muhammed Ali. :-). They got their butt spanked in public and everyone who'se opinion matters is laughing their heads off. (And the people who count are not you and me, but the judges. Like it or not, they have the full authority of the law. :-)  )


What will be amusing is when this gets taken to Europe and these British judges can explain exactly what they meant by "innacuracies" of Apple's quote of German judges.

I expect Apple to appeal the nature of these UK judges heaping contempt in the name of a community court.

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 #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


What will be amusing is when this gets taken to Europe and these British judges can explain exactly what they meant by "innacuracies" of Apple's quote of German judges.

I expect Apple to appeal the nature of these UK judges heaping contempt in the name of a community court.

They've already explained why Apple's claims about German findings wasn't true in Point 22 from the Appeals Court ruling linked earlier:

 

 

(Apple wrote)"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design."

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 59

BTW, Points 23-25 of that order explain the other inaccuracies in Apple's original statement in the view of the court.

 

 

23. The second sentence (in Apple's original statement) reads:

A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.

That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.

24. The third sentence reads:

So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.

25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.

 

So it's done and over.  The problems the court saw with Apple's first statement have been clearly explained. Apple ultimately complied with the court's order and it's not going to be appealed.  Apple is done fighting over it. End of story.  

 

I've no idea why you think there's some advantage in you and Taniwha keeping the fight going Hill60, particularly in this thread which doesn't concern the UK case at all. There's another thread actually dedicated to the UK rulings.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154039/apple-posts-new-notice-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-on-uk-website

 

Mixing the two in the same discussion here is probably causing confusion for casual readers.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/10/12 at 6:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

What will be amusing is when this gets taken to Europe and these British judges can explain exactly what they meant by "innacuracies" of Apple's quote of German judges.

I expect Apple to appeal the nature of these UK judges heaping contempt in the name of a community court.

Don't hold your breath. Apple has reached the end of the line in the EU on this action. They lost. They got called out by the court for lying both directly and by innuendo. They got branded as lacking integrity, and they got costs awarded against them in full as a sign of the court's disapproval of their conduct in the litigation.

 

It's all in the judgment I already cited. Give up on this one, you're just wasting your time.

post #59 of 59

Taniwha, there's a thread this belongs in if you really feel the need to continue (hopefully you don't). This thread isn't it.

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154039/apple-posts-new-notice-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-on-uk-website

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
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