In the US, jurors are generally allowed -- under commonly accepted norms -- to talk about the case after the verdict (except with the lawyers involved, plaintiffs, and defendants). I don't know what the law in CA specifically says, but here is an excerpt from the general jury etiquette descriptions from the state in New England in which I live (underlining mine):
When can I talk about a case in which I participated as a juror?
Once a jury has returned the verdict in a case, the jurors are permitted to discuss the trial, verdict and deliberations with anyone they wish, other than the parties and their attorneys. No attorney, party involved in the case, or any person acting for them, is permitted to interview, examine or question any juror or member of the juror’s family for a period of 30 days after jurors have completed their jury service. After that time has passed, communication is permitted. However, jurors are not required to discuss any matter concerning their jury service with anyone unless they wish to do so. Jurors should let the court know if they are contacted within the 30 day period or if anyone has asked them questions or made comments that were calculated to embarrass or harass the juror or to influence his or her actions in future jury service.
Thanks for the details. I've never doubted that jurors are permitted to comment on the trial after the fact. They'e also not required to.
Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. He then went on to add fuel to the fire by stating an incorrect interpretation of "prior art". Then he went further, telling the interviewer he convinced the rest of the jury to accept his incorrect explanation so they could ignore prior art completely. According to him it wasn't applicable at all and the jury accepted what he had to say since he was their "expert" on patent matters.
It may not rise to the level of verdict dismissal worthiness, but if he had just kept his mouth shut this may never have come up at all. He called attention to himself, his opinions, and how he personally swayed the jury, in the loudest voice possible.
How is he "anxious"? Did he offer himself to all the news outlets? Or were they knocking on his door? With all the media attention this trial was getting, and the court room filled with press, it's obvious that numerous people would have been scrambling to talk to him. This happens after any big trial in the US. And like those other trials, the questions asked by the press are never exactly the same as what was presented to them in court, often resulting in different answers. This does not mean jurors made the wrong decision or they changed their mind.
Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but they started with 70+ jurors. Through questions they removed jurors until they got down to the final 18. Then Samsung and Apple were allowed to ask questions to remove 4 jurors each to get to the final 10. I'd REALLY like to know which 4 jurors Samsung removed, and what questions they asked them to make them think they were more important to remove than Hogan.
I'm convinced Samsung knew about Hogan and left him in the jury on purpose. Even their questioning of him seems very carefully worded for just this possibility. Seriously, asking if he can keep his patent experience out and judge on the facts?
It means the messenger is not responsible for the content of the message, but the author is responsible for the message content. "Don't shoot the messenger" does not apply in a situation where the author is the one being "shot".
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.
The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.
He should have never been in the trial
Apart from the last sentence, which is opinion, cycomiko is just stating the facts as they stand. If telling the guy to "go play on an android forum" because you don't like those facts isn't 'shooting the messenger', then what is?
Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.
Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?
FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.
"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "
He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".
IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.
You lost your credibility when you couldnt understand a simple reply and had to ask "What does that even mean?". Now you are suddenly able to extract information easily from a transcript of the proceedings and try to draw conclusions from them. Did you suddenly get smarter?
Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?
Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Not libel if the person is on court records saying one thing, while evidence shows another.
It's not libel either way. Libel is defamation through written words. Generally, the courts require 1) Proof the statement or statements is/are false, 2) The statements were malicious in nature. While I think Samsung's claim is utterly ludicrous and desperate (what else is new?), their statements about the foreman are not false. Whether they are malicious or not is immaterial, but it's a tough case to make. Even if the statements WERE false, the foreman would have to prove intent to harm his reputation (and he'd have to show actual and future damages).
So, yeah...another ridiculous action by Samsung, who just can't stand losing despite everyone in the world believing that they copied Apple's products, whether legally or illegally.
The guy was asked if he had been involved in a lawsuit. According to various digging eh has been involvedin 3. He discussed one from 2008 and then they moved on. There was never a prodding to ask if he had been in more. The more damaging thing will be when people start focusing on his answers to some other questions.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY
THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
Not to Hogan:
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK
IF YOU WOULD -- OBVIOUSLY YOU KEEP YOUR LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BRING HERE.
BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE
BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL AND NOT ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL PATENT
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
a later question to Hogan that, while not mentioning experience, seems to imply it as no other questions were asked since the previous quote:
NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.
These are all from the court transcript. Arstechnica already has a few pages of comments and this is something getting a lot of discussion, altho there are also idiots claiming he lied b/c he didnt' talk about something they didnt' ask. There was no demand to discuss ALL cases you had been involved in.
BTW, the significance of the above quotes comes when looking at his post trial interviews where it appears he used his personal beliefs on patents to possibly guide things along, as well as using his own status as a patent holder and his past trial experience over such for the same purpose. This would appear to go against him telling the court he would only use evidence and instructions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
"I am in no way defending Sadsong Samsung on this, but this story begs the question. Why in THE world did Hogan grant an interview in the first place?"
My thoughts exactly. I've been on a two juries - rape and dealing drugs (and delivered "guilty" verdicts in both cases). As we left the courthouse, reporters swarmed around us asking how we each voted, what evidence persuaded us, etc. I just kept walking to my car; I was selected as a juror, and that chapter of my civic duty was closed - end of story.
Apple Insider apparently did not do sufficient research for this article. The transcript of juror questions is available and was among the evidence Samsung cited. There's no mention of ten years. He was asked if he'd "ever" be involved in such a dispute.
Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?
This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.
Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.
And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things. His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this. The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are. His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable. From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further. I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.
Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter. I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.
Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?
I lost mine when I replied to you. I was truly trying to answer your question, however you revealed yourself in subsequent posts and are no longer of any importance. Go ahead and have the last word, I will not see it or reply to it. You've made it to my block list in near record time.
Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?
FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.
"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "
He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".
IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.
Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.
Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".
Are these American attorneys or Korean? They seemingly try to "save face" (we can't lose this) by uncovering their own "mistakes" (why are they bringing this up now and didn't during jury selection). Whether American or Korean attorneys... it's Samsung. What can we do? Boycott their other products. No fridge, washer, TV, camera from them anymore!
If they suddenly sell 50,000 fewer fridges in the coming year....that appliance division will come down hard on Samsung's mobile group.
Why is nationality of the lawyers important in this case?
This just brings out your xenophobia and even perhaps racist thinking.
FYI, Samsung's legal firm is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, an AMERICAN firm if that settles your jimmies.
Those who use the nationality card have no better comeback. Use logic and reasoning in your arguments, not superficial, quite frankly, childish arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
In the court of law, any prejudice, bias or favoritism undermines the entire judicial process. The mear perception of bias is enough to rule it a mistrial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things. His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this. The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are. His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable. From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further. I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.
Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter. I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.
Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.
That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.
Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.
Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".
Since I neither try to roil the waters with flame posts nor personally attack other members your definition of a troll seems a tad unique. Quite honestly your own post seems to better match the description of one a troll might write, tho I've seen a lot worse.
IMO it's plain he was relishing the spotlight, and yes for his own gain either in stature or money or both as I suspect Bloomberg paid him for his interview. So I'm not backtracking at all. I was making it clear I never implied he went looking for an interview. He may or may not have. But it's clear to me that he thought he was benefiting personally by granting several of them, at the minimum stroking his ego and at the worst getting a few bucks in his pocket. It's also my clear opinion that it would have been better if he had avoided an interview in the first place.
Apple Insider apparently did not do sufficient research for this article. The transcript of juror questions is available and was among the evidence Samsung cited. There's no mention of ten years. He was asked if he'd "ever" be involved in such a dispute.
Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?
This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.
Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.
And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.
Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").
Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."
Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.
That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.
Sorry, I had just wanted to clarify. I tend to be a pretty strong Apple supporter. I'm just reviewing what I can see of the facts and trying to lay them out in as neutral a way as possible. I was just trying to cut off any response that would just fall back to "Go away Android boy" or some crap like that, which is funny considering I have a 4S and my wife and I only use Apple products currently heh. I think the one Samsung thing I have is the TV her parents bought us.
Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").
Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."
Page 7, line 20 is where it all starts. There are also other questions following that, including the bits I quoted earlier. Inkling slagging on AI for posting what Hogan said about teh 10 year and not doing more research is kind of silly. The initial AP pieces just have what he said too. They don't take the time to dig thru 200 pages of court documentation. Once the news is out, other people go back and dig deeper. That's how news works. AI rarely does any research on their own. Hell, they usually just reword what DIgitimes says They don't really have any journalistic integrity, so yelling at them for that is amusing to me.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
In the US, jurors are generally allowed -- under commonly accepted norms -- to talk about the case after the verdict (except with the lawyers involved, plaintiffs, and defendants). I don't know what the law in CA specifically says, but here is an excerpt from the general jury etiquette descriptions from the state in New England in which I live (underlining mine):
When can I talk about a case in which I participated as a juror?
Once a jury has returned the verdict in a case, the jurors are permitted to discuss the trial, verdict and deliberations with anyone they wish, other than the parties and their attorneys. No attorney, party involved in the case, or any person acting for them, is permitted to interview, examine or question any juror or member of the juror’s family for a period of 30 days after jurors have completed their jury service. After that time has passed, communication is permitted. However, jurors are not required to discuss any matter concerning their jury service with anyone unless they wish to do so. Jurors should let the court know if they are contacted within the 30 day period or if anyone has asked them questions or made comments that were calculated to embarrass or harass the juror or to influence his or her actions in future jury service.
Thanks for the details. I've never doubted that jurors are permitted to comment on the trial after the fact. They'e also not required to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. He then went on to add fuel to the fire by stating an incorrect interpretation of "prior art". Then he went further, telling the interviewer he convinced the rest of the jury to accept his incorrect explanation so they could ignore prior art completely. According to him it wasn't applicable at all and the jury accepted what he had to say since he was their "expert" on patent matters.
It may not rise to the level of verdict dismissal worthiness, but if he had just kept his mouth shut this may never have come up at all. He called attention to himself, his opinions, and how he personally swayed the jury, in the loudest voice possible.
How is he "anxious"? Did he offer himself to all the news outlets? Or were they knocking on his door? With all the media attention this trial was getting, and the court room filled with press, it's obvious that numerous people would have been scrambling to talk to him. This happens after any big trial in the US. And like those other trials, the questions asked by the press are never exactly the same as what was presented to them in court, often resulting in different answers. This does not mean jurors made the wrong decision or they changed their mind.
Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but they started with 70+ jurors. Through questions they removed jurors until they got down to the final 18. Then Samsung and Apple were allowed to ask questions to remove 4 jurors each to get to the final 10. I'd REALLY like to know which 4 jurors Samsung removed, and what questions they asked them to make them think they were more important to remove than Hogan.
I'm convinced Samsung knew about Hogan and left him in the jury on purpose. Even their questioning of him seems very carefully worded for just this possibility. Seriously, asking if he can keep his patent experience out and judge on the facts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
It means the messenger is not responsible for the content of the message, but the author is responsible for the message content. "Don't shoot the messenger" does not apply in a situation where the author is the one being "shot".
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.
The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.
He should have never been in the trial
Apart from the last sentence, which is opinion, cycomiko is just stating the facts as they stand. If telling the guy to "go play on an android forum" because you don't like those facts isn't 'shooting the messenger', then what is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Your implication that he initiated the interviews is insulting.
Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?
FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.
"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "
He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".
IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
You lost your credibility when you couldnt understand a simple reply and had to ask "What does that even mean?". Now you are suddenly able to extract information easily from a transcript of the proceedings and try to draw conclusions from them. Did you suddenly get smarter?
Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tania
Is this not libel what Samsung is doing?
Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Not libel if the person is on court records saying one thing, while evidence shows another.
It's not libel either way. Libel is defamation through written words. Generally, the courts require 1) Proof the statement or statements is/are false, 2) The statements were malicious in nature. While I think Samsung's claim is utterly ludicrous and desperate (what else is new?), their statements about the foreman are not false. Whether they are malicious or not is immaterial, but it's a tough case to make. Even if the statements WERE false, the foreman would have to prove intent to harm his reputation (and he'd have to show actual and future damages).
So, yeah...another ridiculous action by Samsung, who just can't stand losing despite everyone in the world believing that they copied Apple's products, whether legally or illegally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
The guy was asked if he had been involved in a lawsuit. According to various digging eh has been involvedin 3. He discussed one from 2008 and then they moved on. There was never a prodding to ask if he had been in more. The more damaging thing will be when people start focusing on his answers to some other questions.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH
MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY
THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
Not to Hogan:
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK
IF YOU WOULD -- OBVIOUSLY YOU KEEP YOUR LIFE
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND ALL THE OTHER
THINGS THAT YOU BRING HERE.
BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE
BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL AND NOT ON PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL PATENT
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
a later question to Hogan that, while not mentioning experience, seems to imply it as no other questions were asked since the previous quote:
NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO
MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY
ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.
These are all from the court transcript. Arstechnica already has a few pages of comments and this is something getting a lot of discussion, altho there are also idiots claiming he lied b/c he didnt' talk about something they didnt' ask. There was no demand to discuss ALL cases you had been involved in.
BTW, the significance of the above quotes comes when looking at his post trial interviews where it appears he used his personal beliefs on patents to possibly guide things along, as well as using his own status as a patent holder and his past trial experience over such for the same purpose. This would appear to go against him telling the court he would only use evidence and instructions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
My thoughts exactly. I've been on a two juries - rape and dealing drugs (and delivered "guilty" verdicts in both cases). As we left the courthouse, reporters swarmed around us asking how we each voted, what evidence persuaded us, etc. I just kept walking to my car; I was selected as a juror, and that chapter of my civic duty was closed - end of story.
duplicate post
Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?
This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.
Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.
And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things. His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this. The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are. His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable. From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further. I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.
Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter. I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Nice to know that I had credibility to lose. So what happened to yours?
I lost mine when I replied to you. I was truly trying to answer your question, however you revealed yourself in subsequent posts and are no longer of any importance. Go ahead and have the last word, I will not see it or reply to it. You've made it to my block list in near record time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why in the heck would you feel insulted? Is he a family friend, or have some other significance to you personally?
FWIW I never implied he searched out interviewees.
"Had he not been so anxious for his "moment in the sun" he would have avoided a lengthy press interview attracting immediate attention in blogs all over the net. "
He certainly didn't shrink from a TV appearance, nor several followup requests for other interviews. He found the process "exciting".
IMO "No thank you" might have been the better response to interview requests in hindsight.
Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.
Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robre
Are these American attorneys or Korean? They seemingly try to "save face" (we can't lose this) by uncovering their own "mistakes" (why are they bringing this up now and didn't during jury selection). Whether American or Korean attorneys... it's Samsung. What can we do? Boycott their other products. No fridge, washer, TV, camera from them anymore!
If they suddenly sell 50,000 fewer fridges in the coming year....that appliance division will come down hard on Samsung's mobile group.
Why is nationality of the lawyers important in this case?
This just brings out your xenophobia and even perhaps racist thinking.
FYI, Samsung's legal firm is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, an AMERICAN firm if that settles your jimmies.
Those who use the nationality card have no better comeback. Use logic and reasoning in your arguments, not superficial, quite frankly, childish arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Ridiculous. There is no way to prove he disregarded the judge's instructions. Even if he did, that is not Samung's cause of action here. They are claiming he failed to disclose a previous suit, and that it goes to his credibility, as well prevented them from engaging in a full defense by investigating said suit. It's a laughable complaint, as he did not disregard instructions to disclose the lawsuit in question. And Samsung can't possibly believe knowing about that suit could have any bearing on the trial/verdict.
In the court of law, any prejudice, bias or favoritism undermines the entire judicial process. The mear perception of bias is enough to rule it a mistrial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
When you look at his post-trial comments about things like making sure to deliver a message and how they didn't need the judge's instructions b/c they already ahd a decision, there are certainly some questionable things. His comments he made to the press about how he used his previous patent case experience to explain things to people that doesn't match 100% w/how the law functions in those regards all go to this. The fact that Samsung did not jump on these and is instead going on about the suit just shows how terrible their lawyers are. His other actions, whilecertainly needing more thorough review, are the ones that are more questionable. From what I can tell, he gave information about one such case he was in and left it at that and they didn't inquire further. I can only base his actions in the courtroom on the things he has said and his stated actions vs what he promised duiring the voir dire portion of things don't sync up.
Feel free to check my history, I'm certainly not a Samsung supporter. I'm just viewing what appear to be teh facts of this matter.
Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.
That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Your posts are insulting to the readers of AI. You are nothing but a troll. A troll who is very careful about what he says and how he says it, but a troll nonetheless.
Any person with common sense would have interpreted your initial post as implying Hogan was seeking out the spotlight for his own gain. Your "moment in the sun" comment is a perfect example. Now you're backpedalling to try to "explain yourself".
Since I neither try to roil the waters with flame posts nor personally attack other members your definition of a troll seems a tad unique. Quite honestly your own post seems to better match the description of one a troll might write, tho I've seen a lot worse.
IMO it's plain he was relishing the spotlight, and yes for his own gain either in stature or money or both as I suspect Bloomberg paid him for his interview. So I'm not backtracking at all. I was making it clear I never implied he went looking for an interview. He may or may not have. But it's clear to me that he thought he was benefiting personally by granting several of them, at the minimum stroking his ego and at the worst getting a few bucks in his pocket. It's also my clear opinion that it would have been better if he had avoided an interview in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Apple Insider apparently did not do sufficient research for this article. The transcript of juror questions is available and was among the evidence Samsung cited. There's no mention of ten years. He was asked if he'd "ever" be involved in such a dispute.
Also note that Samsung is Seagate's largest stockholder. So this juror, with an obvious axe to grind against Seagate/Samsung, lied to the court to conceal that fact. He's now been caught lying again by claiming a ten year limitation. See a pattern there?
This guy could end up doing prison time--very appropriate since a retrial is going to costing everyone--the court, both parties, and consumers for either company (you and I)--tens of millions of dollars.
Mac news sites--and tech news sites in general--need to get of their rumps and check the court documents available on Groklaw.net before releasing stories like this one. "They said, he said" may be standard journalism practice, but it is a lazy, sloppy practice.
And readers who'd like to follow developments in the case that don't come up lacking in facts or context might want to bookmark Groklaw.
Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").
Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Dont get defensive. People dont seem to like facts here, especially those are that are not in favor of Apple; going so far as to label those who do as "fanboys" of the darkside.
That is clear reality distortion and/or selective hearing. There has been research done that shows people remember any facts or figures that augment their beliefs and ideas but generally "forget" those facts/figures that are not in favor of their beliefs; going so far as to take it as a personal offense and call you names to bolster their egos.
Sorry, I had just wanted to clarify. I tend to be a pretty strong Apple supporter. I'm just reviewing what I can see of the facts and trying to lay them out in as neutral a way as possible. I was just trying to cut off any response that would just fall back to "Go away Android boy" or some crap like that, which is funny considering I have a 4S and my wife and I only use Apple products currently heh. I think the one Samsung thing I have is the TV her parents bought us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Yet despite your rambling, you have provided no evidence yourself. You have not given us any links to court documents or even bothered to quote actual passages (for example, you could have said "on page 27 it has the question Samsung asked Hogan....").
Don't lie - you haven't read any of the documents yourself. You're just taking someone else's summary, assuming it is fact, and quoting what they said. Then you have the nerve to call out AI for not doing "sufficient research."
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf
Page 7, line 20 is where it all starts. There are also other questions following that, including the bits I quoted earlier. Inkling slagging on AI for posting what Hogan said about teh 10 year and not doing more research is kind of silly. The initial AP pieces just have what he said too. They don't take the time to dig thru 200 pages of court documentation. Once the news is out, other people go back and dig deeper. That's how news works. AI rarely does any research on their own. Hell, they usually just reword what DIgitimes says
deleted