Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 113member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 80025 View Post


    They are not sorry for what they did, merely angry that they got caught.



    Exactly.  Treble damages.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 72
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 113member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.


     


    This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.

     



    Where do you get that from?  Sometimes you end up with jurors who have a working knowledge of the subject matter of the litigation.  Besides, Samsung's lawyers would have questioned him before placing him as a juror.  If they were uncomfortable with him, they could have removed him.  They thought it was OK for him to be a juror. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 72
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,179member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Samsung seems to be following a Psystar strategy.

    I still wonder who was backing Psystar. They burned through a lot of money in legal fees for what was essentially a doomed cause. They had help.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 72


    All necessary measures include negotiations and settlement. So let's not make more out of this than it really is.

     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post





    I still wonder who was backing Psystar. They burned through a lot of money in legal fees for what was essentially a doomed cause. They had help.




    I'm sure someone here believe Psystar is Samsung in Korean.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    What an idiotic, desperate claim. I suggest you watch last night's interview of Velvin Hogan by Emily Chang of Bloomberg West (google it) -- and report back.

    He comes through as careful, measured, dispassionate, and thoughtful. In other words, Samsung's worst nightmare.

    He does not own an iPhone, but his wife owns a Samsung phone.

    Add: Here's the link to the interview -- http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-jury-foreman-here-s-how-we-reached-a-verdict-RqtqHC25QbOBFg7xrWa5Wg.html




    I agree that he sounds intelligent and reasonable. On the other hand, he is talking a bit too much, IMO. To say that they made a decisions without need for jury instructions worries me.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 72
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    You might want to read the interviews with the jurors:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/378000/20120828/apple-samsung-verdict-fallout.htm?

    None of the jury members used an iPhone. At least one had a Samsung phone owned by a family member. There is no clear evidence of bias in any respect. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to get a jury disqualified after the close of a trial. Samsung had plenty of opportunity to get biased jurors removed before the trial.

    Samsung is simply throwing more FUD. For example, they claim that they're going to appeal on the basis of invalidity of the patents. Sorry, but they can't. The patents have been found in a court of law to be valid. They can appeal IF THAT DECISION WAS REACHED ERRONEOUSLY, but they can't simply argue that the patents are invalid on appeal. They repeatedly keep using stupid arguments and missing the point entirely - which is a large part of the reason that Apple creamed them in court.

    I feel sorry for Samsung's lawyers. They presumably know the law, but have to do what Samsung tells them (such as bringing witnesses into the court room in clear violation of a direct court order). They look bad in this case, but much of it is because Samsung didn't have much of a case to start with and has been forcing them to go in unproductive directions.


    Actually, read more of the early interviews with the foreman. It is not a question of whether he has an iPhone (or any other Apple product for that matter, but a question of whether he was improperly serving as an expert witness on patents and carried his own motivations based upon prior (presumably bad) experience attempting to enforce a patent of his own. That does not make him a bad person, just not the one who should have been on the jury in the first place (possibly the fault of Samsung's attorneys, presuming that the foreman answered questions during voir dire truthfully), but one who may not have followed the court's instructions.


     


    Another misapprehension you have about the case is your belief that Samsung "brought witnesses into the court contrary to the court's instructions. The legal team made public information which the court had ruled inadmissible (according to news reports which should always be viewed carefully).


     


    And another thing, shouting about the court's ruling does nothing to bolster you argument. The court ruled, at least preliminarily, that the patents were valid and were to be submitted to the jury. That is not the final action of the trial court, though it would be unusual for a trial court to reverse its stance post jury verdict. Speaking of the jury verdict, there are reports that there are inconsistent findings which raise additional issues. The case is not as simple as you may wish it were.


     


    If nothing else, this case illustrates the uncertainty of litigation. In any event, I forsee this case taking a number of years to wind its way through the appellate  courts before anyone can say "it's done". 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 72
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post


    Where do you get that from?  Sometimes you end up with jurors who have a working knowledge of the subject matter of the litigation.  Besides, Samsung's lawyers would have questioned him before placing him as a juror.  If they were uncomfortable with him, they could have removed him.  They thought it was OK for him to be a juror. 



    I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.


     


    I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)


     


    Cheers

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 72
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member


    The first thing to do, when you have dug yourself into a deep hole, is to stop digging.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    rbr wrote: »
    Actually, read more of the early interviews with the foreman. It is not a question of whether he has an iPhone (or any other Apple product for that matter, but a question of whether he was improperly serving as an expert witness on patents and carried his own motivations based upon prior (presumably bad) experience attempting to enforce a patent of his own. That does not make him a bad person, just not the one who should have been on the jury in the first place (possibly the fault of Samsung's attorneys, presuming that the foreman answered questions during voir dire truthfully), but one who may not have followed the court's instructions.

    Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?

    Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 72


    Originally Posted by quinney View Post

    The first thing to do, when you have dug yourself into a deep hole, is to stop digging.


     


    I thought it was "dig yourself a second shaft for air in case of cave-ins".


     


    And here come the jokes about Samsung getting shafted twice… 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Samsung vows to keep fighting?

    It looks like they copied that, as well:



    It's just a flesh wound.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    rbr wrote: »
    I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.

    I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)

    Cheers

    This, of course, begs the question. There's absolutely no knowledge that the foreman did what you suggest.

    More importantly, the speed of the verdict pretty much confirms that they jury didn't need any convincing. They apparently were unanimous from the start that Samsung was guilty and most of the time was spent figuring out the details.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 72
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    This, of course, begs the question. There's absolutely no knowledge that the foreman did what you suggest.

    More importantly, the speed of the verdict pretty much confirms that they jury didn't need any convincing. They apparently were unanimous from the start that Samsung was guilty and most of the time was spent figuring out the details.


    No. Go read things again.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 72
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member


     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 72
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?

    Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.


    You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    rbr wrote: »
    Another misapprehension you have about the case is your belief that Samsung "brought witnesses into the court contrary to the court's instructions. The legal team made public information which the court had ruled inadmissible (according to news reports which should always be viewed carefully).

    You are wrong, again. They did what you described (making information public), but they also brought witnesses into the court room (while the room was empty) in direct violation of the court's orders.
    http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/samsung_shows_courtroom_to_witnesses_breaks_court_rules/

    rbr wrote: »
    You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words. 

    Then tell us the exact words where he claims to be an expert witness and cite a reference.

    More importantly, show us the exact words where he did the following as you claimed:
    "When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."

    I'm not interested in your interpretation, I want to see the exact words where he substituted his knowledge/expertise for the judge's instructions and where he used is knowledge/expertise to substitute for the testimony and evidence presented in the trial.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 72
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,759member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.


     


    This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.

     



     


     


    It no longer makes a difference. 


     


    It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area. 


     


    Just accept it. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    quadra 610 wrote: »

    It no longer makes a difference. 

    It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area. 

    Just accept it. 

    And the bolded is the key.

    Even if Samsung somehow manages to get this verdict thrown out on a technicality (no matter how unlikely), they still have the problem that there's a strong perception that they simply copied from Apple and are unable to do anything unique. A group of average citizens who saw the evidence unanimously agreed that Samsung was a shameless copycat and did so intentionally.

    Samsung's "we'll only change it if the court issues an injunction" is not only a slap at the entire U.S. legal system, but indicates that they don't mind being seen as a shameless copycat who is incapable of creating anything original. If I were a Samsung shareholder, I'd dump the stock on that basis, even if there was no other reason to do so.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 72
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 7,123member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    [ridiculous nonsense slandering the jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung]



     


    What we are seeing here are the new talking points for Samsung shills. Shameless, yes, but they said they'd stop at nothing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.