A desperate company represented by desperate lawyers covering their desperate a****.
Even the die hard Apple apologists know deep down inside that the jury was unfairly swayed by Hogan. The sooner you realize this problem, the easier it will be to swallow.
From a legal standpoint Samsung may have a good argument, if in fact jurors did ignore the judges instructions and relied on evidence not provided during the trial to reach their decision then a new trial would be in order. It would also put to rest the case once and for all. If Apple could win this round, what's to say they wouldn't win the next round! Let the games begin.
Can we expect a jury made from a bunch of 18 year olds with zero life experience to decide cases? This jury passed the screening of plaintive and defendant.
Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required.
From a legal standpoint Samsung may have a good argument, if in fact jurors did ignore the judges instructions and relied on evidence not provided during the trial to reach their decision then a new trial would be in order. It would also put to rest the case once and for all. If Apple could win this round, what's to say they wouldn't win the next round! Let the games begin.
First of all, there's no evidence that they ignored the judge's instructions and/or reached their decision on the basis of evidence not presented at trial. There are suspicions, but nothing more.
Second, Samsung's efforts at jury tampering (releasing information to the press that the court specifically disallowed) should bar them from making this claim even if there were evidence.
Finally, Samsung would have to show that not only did the jury ignore the judge's instructions, but that it was material - that is, that the decision would have been different otherwise. Given the jury's very rapid decision that Samsung was guilty, that would be difficult to do.
It is extremely difficult to get a new trial because you don't like the way the jury decided or because one juror used some of his own personal experience in the decision. They're SUPPOSED to think for themselves. It is very unlikely that this will go anywhere.
Samsung's lawyers do a lot of stupid things, as evidenced by the "its just rectanglez" arguments they based their losing defense around. Every motion they file is a Hail Mary play.
Well, some of their motions have worked.
What did you expect - that Samsung would sign a check without fighting this? Would you?
Isn't this the same jury that Samsung had a hand in selecting? Am I missing something?
Did Samsung's attorneys screw up AGAIN??!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcolley
Samsung's dummy lawyers picked the jury what makes them think that they can do a better job the next time. Maybe they should hire some "C" players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
LMAO.
Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required.
Sammy's such a glutton for punishment.
Jury selection is not jury rigging. The most judicious selection of jurors cannot foresee or prevent misconduct, because jury misconduct often results from misunderstanding rather than malice? If Apple had lost, they too might also have considered asking for a new trial based on jury misconduct, because that's what lawyers should always consider. Odds may be against Samsung getting its way but would any company simply sign a billion dollar check without a fight?
Samsung seriously erred in judgement in emulating Apple design. Their legal defense, looking from outside, seemed weak (but frankly I didn't think Apple lawyers presented the best possible case either). However, asking for a new trial is necessary tactic, even if the odds are not on their side. It's silly, pointless and uninformed to expect anything else, or to mock them for trying.
This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple". No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.
But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?
This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple". No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.
But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
Companies? I think the word you're looking for is chaebol.
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''
The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
They're making fracking *music* *videos* at RIM!?! Is that why BB10 is so late?!?
(Personally, I think they should've done "You're So Vain" instead...)
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''
The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.
Did I comment on your comment? I don't think so. And I most certainly do not believe *all* understand it. Somehow, I don't think you believe that either.
Call me stupid, but I actually believe my level of intellect is not affected by how it appears to you. Sorry to learn that you need to include such meaningful invective to add weight to your "bet", particularly since I wasn't addressing you. How might your intellect appear when you have to be so defensive, eh? But remember, appearance matters not
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
A desperate company represented by desperate lawyers covering their desperate a****.
Even the die hard Apple apologists know deep down inside that the jury was unfairly swayed by Hogan. The sooner you realize this problem, the easier it will be to swallow.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct
Wait, is this the first thought Samsung has ever had that wasn't copied from someone else? Apple hasn't ever claimed misconduct before…
LMAO.
Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required.
Sammy's such a glutton for punishment.
First of all, there's no evidence that they ignored the judge's instructions and/or reached their decision on the basis of evidence not presented at trial. There are suspicions, but nothing more.
Second, Samsung's efforts at jury tampering (releasing information to the press that the court specifically disallowed) should bar them from making this claim even if there were evidence.
Finally, Samsung would have to show that not only did the jury ignore the judge's instructions, but that it was material - that is, that the decision would have been different otherwise. Given the jury's very rapid decision that Samsung was guilty, that would be difficult to do.
It is extremely difficult to get a new trial because you don't like the way the jury decided or because one juror used some of his own personal experience in the decision. They're SUPPOSED to think for themselves. It is very unlikely that this will go anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Samsung's lawyers do a lot of stupid things, as evidenced by the "its just rectanglez" arguments they based their losing defense around. Every motion they file is a Hail Mary play.
Well, some of their motions have worked.
What did you expect - that Samsung would sign a check without fighting this? Would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Isn't this the same jury that Samsung had a hand in selecting? Am I missing something?
Did Samsung's attorneys screw up AGAIN??!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcolley
Samsung's dummy lawyers picked the jury what makes them think that they can do a better job the next time. Maybe they should hire some "C" players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
LMAO.
Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required.
Sammy's such a glutton for punishment.
Jury selection is not jury rigging. The most judicious selection of jurors cannot foresee or prevent misconduct, because jury misconduct often results from misunderstanding rather than malice? If Apple had lost, they too might also have considered asking for a new trial based on jury misconduct, because that's what lawyers should always consider. Odds may be against Samsung getting its way but would any company simply sign a billion dollar check without a fight?
Samsung seriously erred in judgement in emulating Apple design. Their legal defense, looking from outside, seemed weak (but frankly I didn't think Apple lawyers presented the best possible case either). However, asking for a new trial is necessary tactic, even if the odds are not on their side. It's silly, pointless and uninformed to expect anything else, or to mock them for trying.
This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple". No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.
But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple". No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.
But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
Companies? I think the word you're looking for is chaebol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Companies? I think the word you're looking for is chaebol.
That's irrelevant. Would Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, GE, Nokia, ... pay up if they lost a similar case with a similar penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?
Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''
The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
They're making fracking *music* *videos* at RIM!?! Is that why BB10 is so late?!?
(Personally, I think they should've done "You're So Vain" instead...)
It's really sad. Have these waste of time and effort ever bode well for a company, including Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:
The charisma is overwhelming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''
The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.
Did I comment on your comment? I don't think so. And I most certainly do not believe *all* understand it. Somehow, I don't think you believe that either.
Call me stupid, but I actually believe my level of intellect is not affected by how it appears to you. Sorry to learn that you need to include such meaningful invective to add weight to your "bet", particularly since I wasn't addressing you. How might your intellect appear when you have to be so defensive, eh? But remember, appearance matters not
BTW, "stunted" ? "really small"
Lawyers are paid to fight, but I won't praise them for their tactics.
A new trial awaits and the real verdict will be issued.