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.
You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics. And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl.
Four jurors raised their hands when asked about whether they had any patents. Mr. Chiu, Ms. Halim, Mr. Okamato and Mr. Hogan. After that another juror Mr. Tempan also said he had 125 patents.
Mr. Chiu's questioning:
WELL, SINCE THE MICROPHONE IS DOWN THERE,
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD PLEASE AND GIVE THAT TO
MR. CHIU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I WORK FOR -- I WORK
FOR THE NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR BEFORE AND THEY WERE
ACQUIRED BY TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, AND I FILED PATENTS
FOR THE COMPANY.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WERE YOU AN
INVENTOR ON THAT PATENT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: WAS A PATENT ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND WITHOUT SPECIFICS, WHAT
WAS THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT IS THE INTEGRATED
CIRCUIT RELATED.
THE COURT: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS. I HAVE SEVERAL PATENTS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE SEVERAL. AND WERE
THEY ALL WHILE YOU WERE EMPLOYED AT NATIONAL
SEMICONDUCTOR?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND ARE THEY ALL RELATED TO
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND -- OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY 15 YEARS AGO?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS.
THE COURT: 3 TO 15 YEARS. OKAY. SO
VERY RECENTLY.
DO YOU HAVE PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING
NOW?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: YOU DO. OKAY. ALL WITHIN
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN --
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: -- FIELD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WOULD THAT
IN ANY WAY -- YOU'LL BE INSTRUCTED ON WHAT THE LAW
IS AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS
I GIVE YOU ON THE LAW, EVEN IF IT MAY NOT
COMPLETELY CORRESPOND TO WHAT YOU MAY KNOW ABOUT
THE PATENT SYSTEM OR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAWS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, I FOLLOW YOUR
INSTRUCTIONS.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
Ms. Halim's Questioning:
OKAY. LET'S PLEASE START WITH MS. HALIM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: OKAY. I HAVE TWO
PATENTS. ONE IS ISSUED WHEN I WAS AT WEITEK, ALSO
I.C. DESIGN.
ANOTHER ONE WAS AT SILICON GRAPHICS.
THE COURT: AND IT WAS ALSO ON I.C.
DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY. WERE PATENTS ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND YOU WERE THE INVENTOR ON
BOTH?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING
FROM THAT EXPERIENCE -- BASICALLY YOU OBVIOUSLY
WILL BRING YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE TO YOUR ROLE AS A
JUROR, BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SET THAT ASIDE,
YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PATENTS, AND DECIDE
THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE LAW AS YOU'RE
INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
----they came back to Ms. Halim and asked these as well------
THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME ASK MS. HALIM,
HOW LONG AGO WAS YOUR PATENT FOR SILICON GRAPHICS
AND HOW LONG WAS YOUR PATENT FOR -- DID YOU SAY
WAYNE TECH?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: WEITEK, YES.
THE COURT: WEITEK, HOW IS THAT SPELLED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: W-E-I-T-E-K.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. HOW LONG
AGO WERE THOSE TWO PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: FOR WEITEK, IT WAS IN
THE LATE '90S -- LATE '80S.
THE COURT: OKAY.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND FOR SILICON
GRAPHICS, IT'S MID-1990S.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY
PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING NOW?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
Mr. Okamato's Questioning:
LET'S GO TO MR. OKAMOTO, PLEASE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO A COUPLE OF MY
PROJECTS AT GOOGLE INVOLVED, I THINK THE FIRST
PATENT WAS SOME TYPE OF VIDEO U/I LAYOUT.
THE COURT: UM-HUM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND IT WAS ME AND
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM. SO IT WAS SO-AND-SO
THAT WAS ONE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY -- I THINK I FILED A
FEW. I'M NOT SURE IF I REMEMBER ALL OF THEM IN
DETAIL, BUT MOSTLY RELATED TO VIDEO PRESENTATION
AND BEHAVIOR.
THE COURT: SO THEY'RE ALL USER INTERFACE
PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE TIME
PERIOD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO I STARTED
GOOGLE -- IT'S WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, MOSTLY
ABOUT SIX TO SEVEN YEARS AGO.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND PATENTS HAVE
ISSUED? HOW MANY?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ONE HAS ISSUED AND
THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT'S GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW
IS WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE NEW FEATURES IN THE
LATEST ANDROID DEVELOPMENT.
THE COURT: THE OPERATING SYSTEM?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YEAH.
THE COURT: UM-HUM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO THAT ONE IS FAIRLY
RECENTLY, A FEW MONTHS. THE OTHER ONES ARE FAIRLY
OLD.
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.
Mr. Tempan's Questioning:
AH, ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO -- LET'S GO
TO MR. TEPMAN. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS
PATENTS.
THE COURT: CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE,
PLEASE? THANK YOU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE
PATENTS, I HAVE 125 PATENTS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE 125 PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: IN WHAT FIELD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: PHYSICS,
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, ROBOTICS.
THE COURT: AND THESE ARE ALL ISSUED
PATENTS; CORRECT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ISSUED. AND
PENDING, PROBABLY THREE.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE THREE PENDING?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ABOUT.
THE COURT: ROUGHLY WHEN WERE THESE 125
PATENTS ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I STARTED EARLY '90S
AND UNTIL RECENTLY.
THE COURT: AND FOR WHOM DID YOU -- DID
YOU ASSIGN YOUR RIGHTS TO THESE PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ASSIGNED
TO -- IT'S ALL APPLIED MATERIALS.
THE COURT: OH, APPLIED MATERIALS, OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
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.
WHAT ABOUT MR. TEPMAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK SO, TOO.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
Mr. Hogan's Questioning:
THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN. YOU HAD SOME?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: EXCUSE ME. IN 2002,
I FILED FOR A PATENT IN VIDEO COMPRESSION SOFTWARE,
AND IN 2008, THE PATENT WAS ISSUED TO ME.
AND IN 2008 I FILED A FOLLOW-ON PATENT IN
MORE DETAIL AND THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING.
THE COURT: I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
How come they asked the other 4 patent holding jurors several questions about patents but didn't ask Mr. Hogan a single question?
Mr. Hogan was again questioned on a different matter:
NOW, THE NEXT QUESTION, HAVE YOU EVER
BEEN ACCUSED OF TAKING AN IDEA FROM SOMEONE ELSE?
WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
WOULD YOU PLEASE PASS THE MICROPHONE,
MR. TEPMAN? THANK YOU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AS I HAD STATED
EARLIER, THAT WAS -- IN 2008, THAT WAS THE
ACCUSATION AGAINST ME BEFORE THE PATENT WAS ISSUED.
BUT AS I SAID, THAT CASE ULTIMATELY WAS
DROPPED IN MY FAVOR.
THE COURT: NOW, WHEN THE PROGRAMMER SUED
YOU, WAS THAT PROGRAMMER ALSO A CO-INVENTOR ON THE
PATENT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: NO. I SEE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PATENT WAS ISSUED
TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.
THE COURT: I SEE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND I HAD FILED FOR
THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE EFFORT TO WORK
FOR IT. THAT WAS PART OF MY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING
THAT IT WAS MINE.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
So Mr. Hogan raised his hand when asked if he had been accused of taking someone else's idea. From where I'm sitting, a person who has been accused of taking someone else's idea would be a prime candidate for dismissal from a jury on a case that's about stealing ideas.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
I'm more inclined to think Samsung knew about this guy from the start but kept him on the jury so they could it as a (weak) chance to get the case thrown out if they lost.
Google/Samsung knew. That two tier search engine at Mountain View...one for the commons, one for inside trackers only...worked overtime to peer into that guy's past before sending him...vanity first... out on a suicide mission. But I would add one essential qualifier to this forlorn hypothesis.
The guy wasn't meant to be Google/Samsung's scapegoat as the optimal defendant's outcome. His past...from a big corporation perspective...as a hot-head, 'know-it-all' litigator, was deliberately thrown as red meat to the simple commonality of a sampled jury. This jury was sown from the get-go with the seeds of mistrust and ego thumping from the wide discrepancies of knowledge and wherewithal within the jury's ranks. Such a mix rarely works in building a consensus, ...let alone unanimity. Specially extremely high-profile litigation in a Civil Court.
This was planned to end up as a mistrial on a chronical absence of unanimous views towards crucial points of interpretation. It sure wasn't foreseen as a demonstration of quintessential consensus building under the leadership of the one person in the whole lot who was perceived, and planted by the defendant as a lone wolf in the flock.
That guy, digging deep into his technophilic humanity, beat...like a nine-headed hydra...the inside tracker's odd of justice simply crumbling over a jury's ego-driven indecisiveness. That sort of moral ascendancy, the defendant surely did not foresee. Virtues, for them to be witnessed onto others, need the eyes of a beholder...or two...
From now on, ...the defendants will try to impose their overt interpretation of what constitutes a weak link as the next layer of their defense strategy. They obviously aim to bury the guy's credibility in putting him on a public trial as a career manipulator, ...and as an Apple proxy. And as we all know from the Maps happenstance, Google has no peers on the Web and in the Press to mount a ruckus at a moment's notice, and out of somewhere deep down Google/Samsung militarized zone. They feel they own the Web...and the Press, ...and in some mischievous ways...they do.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
Yes, he is an odd person to leave in when he was clearly passionate about ownership of ideas.
I have to say that when he spoke to the press after trial he sounded as if he was the man who swung the decisions based on this personal experience and that struck me as odd. I expected the jurors to be more individual in their decisions.
Oh well, whether Samsung win or loose was never going to change things really. Both Apple and Samsung will continue to sell boatloads of phones.
Why? Because I said that this was coming? Who would have thought a business would be defending themselves against paying out a billion, using whatever methods they could, Including the foreman's inappropriate media commentary.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
looks like some of AI'ers are starting to realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now. I believe each side had 3 votes.
Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing. Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.
You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics. And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl.
By the way, a quick perusal of your past posts doesn't show much in the way of positive input or new ideas, simply some ridicule and name-calling for the most part. Neither of those require much thought.
We already have an ample supply of members who are willing to fill the role of egregious troll (do a web search if you're not familiar with the term). Rather than join that crowd why not challenge yourself? Spend a little more time to form a cohesive argument disputing something I've written. If that's too big a challenge to start with then pick any worthy post from anyone, then explain why that member is incorrect in your opinion. Put some real thought into it.
Any 16 year old high school kid is skilled in the art of "punking", but no one other than another 16 year old respects them for it.
looks like some of AI'ers are starting realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now. I believe each side had 3 votes.
Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing. Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.
Apple isn't using Hogan as an excuse to overturn the verdict - Samsung is. Therefore they should be the ones who are scrutinized for their decision to to remove Hogan.
Samsung's lawyers aren't stupid even though some things they do may seem like it. I believe all the decisions they made were caclulated for a specific reason. From letting Hogan remain to "leaking" evidence to the media that Judge Koh excluded. Even running out of their allocated 25 hours of court time leaving Apple a few hours to question witnesses without cross-examination. Samsung knows exaclty what they're doing - leaving several back doors slightly ajar hoping they'll be able to open one later on.
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
Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?
By the way, a quick perusal of your past posts doesn't show much in the way of positive input or new ideas, simply some ridicule and name-calling for the most part. Neither of those require much thought.
We already have an ample supply of members who are willing to fill the role of egregious troll (do a web search if you're not familiar with the term). Rather than join that crowd why not challenge yourself? Spend a little more time to form a cohesive argument disputing something I've written. If that's too big a challenge to start with then pick any worthy post from anyone, then explain why that member is incorrect in your opinion. Put some real thought into it.
Any 16 year old high school kid is skilled in the art of "punking", but no one other than another 16 year old respects them for it.
Another example of your passive aggressive tendencies, thanks dude. You win the inner webs today, now finish eating that hot pocket and go outside.
So Mr. Hogan raised his hand when asked if he had been accused of taking someone else's idea. From where I'm sitting, a person who has been accused of taking someone else's idea would be a prime candidate for dismissal from a jury on a case that's about stealing ideas.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
Not at all.
If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.
Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.
Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?
I made that mistake too when i first read the "guilty after one day" quote. I thought that the jury was suspect if they decided after one day of the trial. But if you go back and read it in context, he was stating they "knew Samsung was guilty after one day" of deliberations. Although this was still quick, it doesn't cast doubt on the jury.
I can't remember how many times some idiot on some forum thought that the jury decided Samsung was guilty after the first day of the trial, not after the first day of deliberations.
I've also heard people say that it would be impossible for the jury to answer all 700 questions in such a short time. Well, they weren't 700 individual questions, they were groups of questions that were repeated over for each of the 20 something devices that were accused of infringing. In effect, there were not that many questions to answer and after they worked through them once it would be easy to pick up each subsequent device (which they had in the jury room to examine and use) and quickly go through the same set of questions again.
It's truly amazing how many stupid theories people come up with just because they don't like Apple. It's like talking to 9/11 truthers, people that believe the Queen is an alien lizard or that we're all going to die in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar.
If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.
Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.
I think there are more options than the two you presented.
First off, he never really "stole" ideas - he had a company and a programmer worked for him. The programmer thought he should have part ownership of the idea and Hogan said it belonged to the company. Hogan stated they settled out of court and the lawsuit was dismissed. The settlement was never discussed so we don't know if Hogan paid money or if the programmer just dropped it.
So Hogan could have "stole" the idea and paid the programmer off. This is not the same thing as Hogan "getting away with it" as any payout Hogan might have made is an expense he suffered from his "stealing" the idea. Or the programmer could have made a license deal such that if Hogan made money from the future sale of the patent that he'd get a portion.
The fact is we don't know any details of Hogan's settlement with his programmer. This means Hogan is a wild card that neither Samsung nor Apple could count on to benefit their side.Someone who's a "wild card" seems an automatic choice for removal simply because nobody knows the details of his case.
I made that mistake too when i first read the "guilty after one day" quote. I thought that the jury was suspect if they decided after one day of the trial. But if you go back and read it in context, he was stating they "knew Samsung was guilty after one day" of deliberations. Although this was still quick, it doesn't cast doubt on the jury.
Samsung lost against a big company and now singling out this one individual?
Their trying to divert attention away from their less-than-steller attorneys. Those are the guys Samsung should be suing. Aren't there 11 other members of the jury who had a say in the verdict? While I too would be doing anything I could to avoid paying the $$ and the bad publicity, this comes off as grasping at straws.
This is no one's fault but Samsung's "legal team" (to use the term loosely). They didn't do their job properly, and now they want someone else to take the fall. Sorry, but that's not how it works. "I effed up at trial, can you fix this for me judge?" isn't an actual post-trial argument.
you mean when somebody fails to answer the questions from the judge correctly? If so, then its entirely within the legal right of samsung to use this to their advantage. Apple could have also gone through the entire background of this jury, and noticed that inclusion of this juror could ultimately be an issue for the case. IF the judge agrees with Samsung, then all apple has achieved is an expensive lawsuit with no outcome.
Comments
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics. And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl.
Four jurors raised their hands when asked about whether they had any patents. Mr. Chiu, Ms. Halim, Mr. Okamato and Mr. Hogan. After that another juror Mr. Tempan also said he had 125 patents.
Mr. Chiu's questioning:
WELL, SINCE THE MICROPHONE IS DOWN THERE,
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD PLEASE AND GIVE THAT TO
MR. CHIU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I WORK FOR -- I WORK
FOR THE NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR BEFORE AND THEY WERE
ACQUIRED BY TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, AND I FILED PATENTS
FOR THE COMPANY.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WERE YOU AN
INVENTOR ON THAT PATENT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: WAS A PATENT ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND WITHOUT SPECIFICS, WHAT
WAS THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT IS THE INTEGRATED
CIRCUIT RELATED.
THE COURT: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS. I HAVE SEVERAL PATENTS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE SEVERAL. AND WERE
THEY ALL WHILE YOU WERE EMPLOYED AT NATIONAL
SEMICONDUCTOR?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND ARE THEY ALL RELATED TO
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND -- OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY 15 YEARS AGO?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS.
THE COURT: 3 TO 15 YEARS. OKAY. SO
VERY RECENTLY.
DO YOU HAVE PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING
NOW?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: YOU DO. OKAY. ALL WITHIN
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN --
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: -- FIELD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WOULD THAT
IN ANY WAY -- YOU'LL BE INSTRUCTED ON WHAT THE LAW
IS AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS
I GIVE YOU ON THE LAW, EVEN IF IT MAY NOT
COMPLETELY CORRESPOND TO WHAT YOU MAY KNOW ABOUT
THE PATENT SYSTEM OR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAWS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, I FOLLOW YOUR
INSTRUCTIONS.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
Ms. Halim's Questioning:
OKAY. LET'S PLEASE START WITH MS. HALIM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: OKAY. I HAVE TWO
PATENTS. ONE IS ISSUED WHEN I WAS AT WEITEK, ALSO
I.C. DESIGN.
ANOTHER ONE WAS AT SILICON GRAPHICS.
THE COURT: AND IT WAS ALSO ON I.C.
DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES, RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY. WERE PATENTS ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND YOU WERE THE INVENTOR ON
BOTH?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING
FROM THAT EXPERIENCE -- BASICALLY YOU OBVIOUSLY
WILL BRING YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE TO YOUR ROLE AS A
JUROR, BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SET THAT ASIDE,
YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PATENTS, AND DECIDE
THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE LAW AS YOU'RE
INSTRUCTED AND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING
THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
----they came back to Ms. Halim and asked these as well------
THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME ASK MS. HALIM,
HOW LONG AGO WAS YOUR PATENT FOR SILICON GRAPHICS
AND HOW LONG WAS YOUR PATENT FOR -- DID YOU SAY
WAYNE TECH?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: WEITEK, YES.
THE COURT: WEITEK, HOW IS THAT SPELLED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: W-E-I-T-E-K.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. HOW LONG
AGO WERE THOSE TWO PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: FOR WEITEK, IT WAS IN
THE LATE '90S -- LATE '80S.
THE COURT: OKAY.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND FOR SILICON
GRAPHICS, IT'S MID-1990S.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY
PATENT APPLICATIONS PENDING NOW?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
Mr. Okamato's Questioning:
LET'S GO TO MR. OKAMOTO, PLEASE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO A COUPLE OF MY
PROJECTS AT GOOGLE INVOLVED, I THINK THE FIRST
PATENT WAS SOME TYPE OF VIDEO U/I LAYOUT.
THE COURT: UM-HUM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND IT WAS ME AND
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM. SO IT WAS SO-AND-SO
THAT WAS ONE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY -- I THINK I FILED A
FEW. I'M NOT SURE IF I REMEMBER ALL OF THEM IN
DETAIL, BUT MOSTLY RELATED TO VIDEO PRESENTATION
AND BEHAVIOR.
THE COURT: SO THEY'RE ALL USER INTERFACE
PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE TIME
PERIOD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO I STARTED
GOOGLE -- IT'S WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, MOSTLY
ABOUT SIX TO SEVEN YEARS AGO.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND PATENTS HAVE
ISSUED? HOW MANY?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ONE HAS ISSUED AND
THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT'S GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW
IS WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE NEW FEATURES IN THE
LATEST ANDROID DEVELOPMENT.
THE COURT: THE OPERATING SYSTEM?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YEAH.
THE COURT: UM-HUM.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: SO THAT ONE IS FAIRLY
RECENTLY, A FEW MONTHS. THE OTHER ONES ARE FAIRLY
OLD.
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.
Mr. Tempan's Questioning:
AH, ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO -- LET'S GO
TO MR. TEPMAN. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS
PATENTS.
THE COURT: CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE,
PLEASE? THANK YOU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE
PATENTS, I HAVE 125 PATENTS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE 125 PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: IN WHAT FIELD?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: PHYSICS,
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, ROBOTICS.
THE COURT: AND THESE ARE ALL ISSUED
PATENTS; CORRECT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ISSUED. AND
PENDING, PROBABLY THREE.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE THREE PENDING?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: ABOUT.
THE COURT: ROUGHLY WHEN WERE THESE 125
PATENTS ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I STARTED EARLY '90S
AND UNTIL RECENTLY.
THE COURT: AND FOR WHOM DID YOU -- DID
YOU ASSIGN YOUR RIGHTS TO THESE PATENTS?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT'S ALL ASSIGNED
TO -- IT'S ALL APPLIED MATERIALS.
THE COURT: OH, APPLIED MATERIALS, OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
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.
WHAT ABOUT MR. TEPMAN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK SO, TOO.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
Mr. Hogan's Questioning:
THE COURT: NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN. YOU HAD SOME?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: EXCUSE ME. IN 2002,
I FILED FOR A PATENT IN VIDEO COMPRESSION SOFTWARE,
AND IN 2008, THE PATENT WAS ISSUED TO ME.
AND IN 2008 I FILED A FOLLOW-ON PATENT IN
MORE DETAIL AND THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING.
THE COURT: I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
How come they asked the other 4 patent holding jurors several questions about patents but didn't ask Mr. Hogan a single question?
Mr. Hogan was again questioned on a different matter:
NOW, THE NEXT QUESTION, HAVE YOU EVER
BEEN ACCUSED OF TAKING AN IDEA FROM SOMEONE ELSE?
WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
WOULD YOU PLEASE PASS THE MICROPHONE,
MR. TEPMAN? THANK YOU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AS I HAD STATED
EARLIER, THAT WAS -- IN 2008, THAT WAS THE
ACCUSATION AGAINST ME BEFORE THE PATENT WAS ISSUED.
BUT AS I SAID, THAT CASE ULTIMATELY WAS
DROPPED IN MY FAVOR.
THE COURT: NOW, WHEN THE PROGRAMMER SUED
YOU, WAS THAT PROGRAMMER ALSO A CO-INVENTOR ON THE
PATENT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.
THE COURT: NO. I SEE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PATENT WAS ISSUED
TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.
THE COURT: I SEE.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND I HAD FILED FOR
THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE EFFORT TO WORK
FOR IT. THAT WAS PART OF MY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING
THAT IT WAS MINE.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
So Mr. Hogan raised his hand when asked if he had been accused of taking someone else's idea. From where I'm sitting, a person who has been accused of taking someone else's idea would be a prime candidate for dismissal from a jury on a case that's about stealing ideas.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
Google/Samsung knew. That two tier search engine at Mountain View...one for the commons, one for inside trackers only...worked overtime to peer into that guy's past before sending him...vanity first... out on a suicide mission. But I would add one essential qualifier to this forlorn hypothesis.
The guy wasn't meant to be Google/Samsung's scapegoat as the optimal defendant's outcome. His past...from a big corporation perspective...as a hot-head, 'know-it-all' litigator, was deliberately thrown as red meat to the simple commonality of a sampled jury. This jury was sown from the get-go with the seeds of mistrust and ego thumping from the wide discrepancies of knowledge and wherewithal within the jury's ranks. Such a mix rarely works in building a consensus, ...let alone unanimity. Specially extremely high-profile litigation in a Civil Court.
This was planned to end up as a mistrial on a chronical absence of unanimous views towards crucial points of interpretation. It sure wasn't foreseen as a demonstration of quintessential consensus building under the leadership of the one person in the whole lot who was perceived, and planted by the defendant as a lone wolf in the flock.
That guy, digging deep into his technophilic humanity, beat...like a nine-headed hydra...the inside tracker's odd of justice simply crumbling over a jury's ego-driven indecisiveness. That sort of moral ascendancy, the defendant surely did not foresee. Virtues, for them to be witnessed onto others, need the eyes of a beholder...or two...
From now on, ...the defendants will try to impose their overt interpretation of what constitutes a weak link as the next layer of their defense strategy. They obviously aim to bury the guy's credibility in putting him on a public trial as a career manipulator, ...and as an Apple proxy. And as we all know from the Maps happenstance, Google has no peers on the Web and in the Press to mount a ruckus at a moment's notice, and out of somewhere deep down Google/Samsung militarized zone. They feel they own the Web...and the Press, ...and in some mischievous ways...they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
Yes, he is an odd person to leave in when he was clearly passionate about ownership of ideas.
I have to say that when he spoke to the press after trial he sounded as if he was the man who swung the decisions based on this personal experience and that struck me as odd. I expected the jurors to be more individual in their decisions.
Oh well, whether Samsung win or loose was never going to change things really. Both Apple and Samsung will continue to sell boatloads of phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
go play on an android site.
Why? Because I said that this was coming? Who would have thought a business would be defending themselves against paying out a billion, using whatever methods they could, Including the foreman's inappropriate media commentary.
Wow so shocking. I must be an android supporter.
According to the transcripts, the man lied.... This is reason enough to get the verdict thrown out... period...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I'm really starting to wonder why Hogan was left on the jury and why Samsung didn't use one of their 4 votes to remove him.
looks like some of AI'ers are starting to realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now. I believe each side had 3 votes.
Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing. Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
You insult the members intelligence on these forums, with your passive aggressive shill antics. And I find it frightening that a grown man puts a winking face at the end of every passive aggressive statement you make, its like a 14 year old sticker collecting girl.
By the way, a quick perusal of your past posts doesn't show much in the way of positive input or new ideas, simply some ridicule and name-calling for the most part. Neither of those require much thought.
We already have an ample supply of members who are willing to fill the role of egregious troll (do a web search if you're not familiar with the term). Rather than join that crowd why not challenge yourself? Spend a little more time to form a cohesive argument disputing something I've written. If that's too big a challenge to start with then pick any worthy post from anyone, then explain why that member is incorrect in your opinion. Put some real thought into it.
Any 16 year old high school kid is skilled in the art of "punking", but no one other than another 16 year old respects them for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
looks like some of AI'ers are starting realize that Hogan was a liability from the getgo now. I believe each side had 3 votes.
Why don't you ask Noreen Krall? Ok, Samsung lawyers are morons, but I thought Apple's lawyers knew what they were doing. Perhaps Apple also knew Hogan had a conflict of interest, but kept him there, you know "just in case." Maybe Ms Krall had hoped that Samsung's lawyers would never find out.
Apple isn't using Hogan as an excuse to overturn the verdict - Samsung is. Therefore they should be the ones who are scrutinized for their decision to to remove Hogan.
Samsung's lawyers aren't stupid even though some things they do may seem like it. I believe all the decisions they made were caclulated for a specific reason. From letting Hogan remain to "leaking" evidence to the media that Judge Koh excluded. Even running out of their allocated 25 hours of court time leaving Apple a few hours to question witnesses without cross-examination. Samsung knows exaclty what they're doing - leaving several back doors slightly ajar hoping they'll be able to open one later on.
Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
By the way, a quick perusal of your past posts doesn't show much in the way of positive input or new ideas, simply some ridicule and name-calling for the most part. Neither of those require much thought.
We already have an ample supply of members who are willing to fill the role of egregious troll (do a web search if you're not familiar with the term). Rather than join that crowd why not challenge yourself? Spend a little more time to form a cohesive argument disputing something I've written. If that's too big a challenge to start with then pick any worthy post from anyone, then explain why that member is incorrect in your opinion. Put some real thought into it.
Any 16 year old high school kid is skilled in the art of "punking", but no one other than another 16 year old respects them for it.
Another example of your passive aggressive tendencies, thanks dude. You win the inner webs today, now finish eating that hot pocket and go outside.
Not at all.
If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.
Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
Another example of your passive aggressive tendencies, thanks dude. You win the inner webs today, now finish eating that hot pocket and go outside.
That went right over your head apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Was he the guy who explained how jury took such short time to make decission by saying something like "We knew Samsung is guilty after day one"?
I always thought that is weird thing to say in public, even if he did believe that. I mean - how much evidence/witnesses/ were presented on day one anyway? Does it not colour him heavily biased?
I made that mistake too when i first read the "guilty after one day" quote. I thought that the jury was suspect if they decided after one day of the trial. But if you go back and read it in context, he was stating they "knew Samsung was guilty after one day" of deliberations. Although this was still quick, it doesn't cast doubt on the jury.
^ This.
I can't remember how many times some idiot on some forum thought that the jury decided Samsung was guilty after the first day of the trial, not after the first day of deliberations.
I've also heard people say that it would be impossible for the jury to answer all 700 questions in such a short time. Well, they weren't 700 individual questions, they were groups of questions that were repeated over for each of the 20 something devices that were accused of infringing. In effect, there were not that many questions to answer and after they worked through them once it would be easy to pick up each subsequent device (which they had in the jury room to examine and use) and quickly go through the same set of questions again.
It's truly amazing how many stupid theories people come up with just because they don't like Apple. It's like talking to 9/11 truthers, people that believe the Queen is an alien lizard or that we're all going to die in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not at all.
If he actually HAD stolen someone else's ideas, Samsung would think that he'd side with them because he got away with it, too. If he really hadn't stolen someone else's ideas, it would still work in Samsung's favor because he would realize that not all accusations are true.
Either way, someone who had been accused of stealing ideas works in Samsung's favor.
I think there are more options than the two you presented.
First off, he never really "stole" ideas - he had a company and a programmer worked for him. The programmer thought he should have part ownership of the idea and Hogan said it belonged to the company. Hogan stated they settled out of court and the lawsuit was dismissed. The settlement was never discussed so we don't know if Hogan paid money or if the programmer just dropped it.
So Hogan could have "stole" the idea and paid the programmer off. This is not the same thing as Hogan "getting away with it" as any payout Hogan might have made is an expense he suffered from his "stealing" the idea. Or the programmer could have made a license deal such that if Hogan made money from the future sale of the patent that he'd get a portion.
The fact is we don't know any details of Hogan's settlement with his programmer. This means Hogan is a wild card that neither Samsung nor Apple could count on to benefit their side.Someone who's a "wild card" seems an automatic choice for removal simply because nobody knows the details of his case.
Ah. OK, thanks.
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?
Their trying to divert attention away from their less-than-steller attorneys. Those are the guys Samsung should be suing. Aren't there 11 other members of the jury who had a say in the verdict? While I too would be doing anything I could to avoid paying the $$ and the bad publicity, this comes off as grasping at straws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
Which is exactly what voir dire is for.
This is no one's fault but Samsung's "legal team" (to use the term loosely). They didn't do their job properly, and now they want someone else to take the fall. Sorry, but that's not how it works. "I effed up at trial, can you fix this for me judge?" isn't an actual post-trial argument.
you mean when somebody fails to answer the questions from the judge correctly? If so, then its entirely within the legal right of samsung to use this to their advantage. Apple could have also gone through the entire background of this jury, and noticed that inclusion of this juror could ultimately be an issue for the case. IF the judge agrees with Samsung, then all apple has achieved is an expensive lawsuit with no outcome.