Edited by whatever71 - 12/18/12 at 9:05am
Yes, there is. By asking questions of the potential jurors both sides can determine if any of them might sway the jury. Apple's lawyers did find out that the juror in question had once sued Seagate, but it had been over 10 years ago. Apple's lawyers notified the Samsung lawyers of that fact, and they declined to excuse that juror. It wasn't until after the verdict that Samsung's lawyers developed an issue with that juror.
Samsung's lawyers wanted to go back and get a trial do-over based on allowing this one guy to serve on the jury. The judge said," No, too bad, so sad, you had your chance to excuse him and you declined to do so."
(1) It's an old American expression used to indicate that something was made bigger than it really is.
(2) She said that while Samsung did steal, an injunction is too large a penalty, Apple should seek a lesser way to settle this.
As I understand it, Samsung's lawyers didn't ASK the question right. The discovery question asked if he had been involved in suits in the last ten years, and he'd been involved in such OVER ten years ago. Apple's lawyers did discover the fact and did notify Samsung's lawyers promptly. Samsung's lawyers declined to look further into it and didn't challenge the juror.
That's "making a mountain out of a molehill".
"Doesn't add up to a hill of beans" means "this doesn't have a very large impact" or "isn't very meaningful".
Originally Posted by Marvin
Originally Posted by Marvin
Judge Koh nailed this one. On both counts.
Apple almost has to appeal not winning an injunction (and I'm sure their lawyers will convince them to), but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. Their executives have to now its an appeal they will lose.
Keep in mind Judge Koh previously DID grant Apple an injunction against Samsungs Galaxy. It was appealed out of her district court and into the federal appeals court (the same court Apple would now be trying to convince they should be granted an injuction). The appeals court overturned the injunction in pretty forceful terms.
I'm not sure but I believe in that case the primary driver was the 'rounded corners' patent. The final ruling made an analogy between what could happen in other industries and they followed suit in Apples lead in seeking injunctions. It read something along the lines of 'for the automobile industry to be healthy companies need to be able to build cars. Every car is going to need certain fundamentals. It will need an engine, wheels, doors, seats, etc. There are thousands of patents covering specifics to each of these and they are distributed across thousands of inventors.
What Apple has done is the equivalent of taking an already existing car and added and patented a feature [ I think they used a cupholder as the analogy ]. Apple has added a cupholder to the car. People love it and it may influence their decision in purchasing a car, but people do not buy a car to be a cupholder. Other manufactures need to be free to add cupholders to their cars, but should deviate from the patented design. If they do not, they are guilty of infringement and need to be penalized, BUT (and this is where they kind of slapped judge Koh pretty hard, I guess its a 'judge thing') you can possibly impose an injunction for it. You could not stop automobile manufacturers from delivering entire automobile lines to market simply because they have a minor feature that too closesly resembles another.
Judge Koh's ruling in this case kind of falls in line with that. Samsung infringed several patents, no doubt about it and if there is- tough, thats how the jury ruled. Rounded corners- check, bounceback- check, pinch to zoom- check. Put a piece of plastic with rounded corners out there on the market with bounceback and pinch to zoom and sell it for $600. Do NOT add anything else that Apple did not invent such as:
Glass, Electricity, a CPU, Memory, Capacative Touchscreen, Icons, GUI, the ability to transmit data wirelessy, a speaker, a microphone etc etc etc you get the picture. You would sell ZERO of the devices that didn't have any of those just as you'd have a hard time selling a car with no engines or tires for full price- even if it did have a nifty cupholder.
If the ruling had held and other industries took note and started acting like the smartphone business and seeking injunctions for every minor micropatent they could race to push through the patent office the world would be much much worse off.
In the case of the 'biased juror' she absolutely nailed it again. The ruling doesn't touch on whether the juror was biased or not (if you read some of the statements it is very tough to argue he wasn't biased). The key is that all the information that raised a flag with the juror was available to Samsung before the trial. They should have done a more thorough job during jury selection and objected then. That's how it works. Period. If she had relied on the data suggesting bias and allowed a retrial that would just be a mockery. Every lawyer heading to trial would seek to allow marginal candidates on the jury and hope they convince them into a win- should they lose they simply seek a retrial with their newfound proof of bias. Blech.
On the upside of not getting the injunction for Apple- and this is pure speculation on my part- I can't help but think the timing of Samsungs withdrawal of their suits against Apple is related. If Apple can't get an injunction for (questionable) design/trade dress patents, Samsung pretty certainly isn't going to get them for FRAND patents.
No sir. When ordered to answer that question by Judge Koh just a couple weeks ago Apple says they didn't know about it either until after the fact.