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 believe so. He was the guy who said he helped turn the jury around by teaching them about prior art. It was a rather odd commentary.
This is called a "jury trial" and is meant to allow cases to be tried by a jury of one's peers, a random representation of the citizens of the jurisdiction. I hate to tell you, but this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. You see, what you thought you could do is come in, grab a dozen moronic Americans who knew nothing about patent law and get away with your shenanigans. But here we have a true American. One who's worked hard and been sued by big corporations. Someone who knew a thing or two about how this stuff works. It's not called "tainting", it's called "learning from experience" and passing that on to his peers on the jury.
I just can't even stand what you are doing and it is a mockery of the American judicial system and of justice everywhere. I know you are butthurt over losing and now you are denying that maybe, just maybe you run your business in a very unethical way. You rail against Apple and it's customers as "sheep", and yet that's exactly what you want this jury to have been. You wanted them to not think for themselves or apply their own wisdom and experience to the case.
So please Samsung, go back from where you came. We don't need your cheap knockoffs anymore.
Jury misconduct is not acceptable, and what you describe is just that. What I find interesting is that Samsung is not, yet, arguing jury misconduct, but merely that hogan failed, in this part of the voir dire, to disclose more of his legal experience.
This is a weak argument, and not one which has any chance of succeeding in having the decision thrown out.
The fact that hogan, in an interview, discussed his interpretation of how to read a patent, and shared that with the other members of the jury is potentially jury misconduct, and it would result in a mistrial. It really depends on whether hogan's interpretation was correct, whether his interpretation was based on research he did outside of jury deliberations, the details of the jury instructions, etc.
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.
Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.
Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.
Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.
Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.
Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.
Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.
Which other jurors held patents? I wasn't aware of any but that doesn't necessarily mean no others did. I'd be appreciative if you could name the others.
From an interview at CNET with one of the other jurors, Manuel Ilagan:
"The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
What reason did Mr. Hogan give the rest of the jury to convince them they could ignore prior art claims against Apple patents?
Quote: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there. VEL HOGANJury Foreman
But what is the definition of 'Prior art?
Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
So according to another jury member's explanation of how the verdict was arrived at so quickly, it certainly sounds as tho they were swayed by Mr. Hogan's personally-held and incorrect interpretation of the law, directing them to ignore prior art as a defense based on Mr. Hogan's experience as a patent holder himself.
When this first came out and the Foreman made his comments about being a patent holder I said Samsung lawyer screwed up by letting him on the jury. It is not the juror fault, anyone would use personal knowledge and experience when making any sort do decision in spite of the jury instruction say..
My thoughts also. If they knew he was a patent holder himself they should have had him kept off the jury.
No matter what someone says in those kinds of questions, personal experience will be a factor. So you don't let admitted crime victims on such a jury and you don't trust patent holders to be unbiased in a patent trial
If the documents show that they knew the guy was a patent holder', had the means to excuse him and didn't, then they have no right to appeal because of him.
And I agree that if the lawyers weren't asking about personal patent experiences they were dumb and got what they desired in that point. They probably thought they could use the lack of 'knowing' as a reason to appeal if they lost. I hope they try it, get the appeal and lose again.
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.
eh? Well, if Samsung's lawyers knew what they were doing, that crucial evidence, which was later leaked to the public, would not have been rejected in the first place (also note, a much greater number of Samsung's evidence/witnesses were rejected vs Apple's witness/evidence).
Furthermore, I don't think it's common for a member of the jury to run in a victory lap giving interviews as to how they came to such a biased verdict. After all, no other member of the jury came forth to speak (well, other than Manuel Ilagan). Seriously, all Hogan had to do was to say "no thank you" and avoid the spotlight as everyone else in the jury did. Hogan's past trouble with Seagate wouldn't have been an issue had he kept his mouth shut. Now, I don't see how Samsung's lawyer could have orchestrated all this - unless, of course, you believe QE lawyers played Jedi mind trick on Hogan.
This guy should have never been let on the jury. Evidence seems to support the idea that he lied about his past as well, and other jurors cited that he influenced their decision.
I'll be shocked if this doesn't get declared a mistrial.
No matter which side of the issue you stand on, it's fairly obvious that the jury didn't play according to the letter of the law, and that they were swayed by Mr. Hogan. And of course, everything came into the open when he gave Bloomberg an interview...
THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let’s continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?
Mr. Hogan's statement to media post verdict
Quote:
“I answered every question the judge asked me [and Samsung] had every opportunity to question me. Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”
It's clear that the COURT's questions were definitely "open-ended" and with "no time constraints".
I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO. With that said I personally believe it's very likely that Judge Koh will reduce the jury's award, perhaps significantly, and in any case expect an appeal and probably from both Apple and Samsung before it's all over.
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO.
I agree with you there. Although if I was Mr Hogan, I'd stop talking to the press right now as every time he opens his mouth (most recently just three days ago) he's making that hurdle lower and lower for Samsung.
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
It's a tad closer than that, but not by a lot. Samsung is the majority owner of Seagate, the company that sued and won against Mr. Hogan. The Seagate lawyer in that case is the connection you mentioned.
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
You're not seeing the full picture about Samsung's involvement with Seagate.
You're not seeing the full picture about Samsung's involvement with Seagate.
That happened much later though. Different subsidiary, unrelated industry, new management. Assuming there is revenge, there's no way it would hurt anyone that did anything to him.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Why do you keep posting rubbish from an irrelevant site?
Their "fifteen minutes" was over with SCO's last legal action.
There is nothing left there except the rantings of some disaffected fanboys.
I can't believe people still buy their spin.
P.S. it's blocking time for you.
You mean a website that is hosting copies of the official court documents?
Yes, obviously for some challanged people, the official court documents are utterly irrelevant. .
Well done on blocking me, must be easier than using some grey matter.
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 believe so. He was the guy who said he helped turn the jury around by teaching them about prior art. It was a rather odd commentary.
Jury misconduct is not acceptable, and what you describe is just that. What I find interesting is that Samsung is not, yet, arguing jury misconduct, but merely that hogan failed, in this part of the voir dire, to disclose more of his legal experience.
This is a weak argument, and not one which has any chance of succeeding in having the decision thrown out.
The fact that hogan, in an interview, discussed his interpretation of how to read a patent, and shared that with the other members of the jury is potentially jury misconduct, and it would result in a mistrial. It really depends on whether hogan's interpretation was correct, whether his interpretation was based on research he did outside of jury deliberations, the details of the jury instructions, etc.
Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.
Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.
Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Your misrepresenting what Hogan said. And what he did say in the interview I saw was legally correct, as far as it goes.
Finally, he wasn't "the" expert. Several other jurors held patents, and were equally capable of interpreting the jury instructions regarding prior art, for example. So, what you had in the jury was many highly accomplished people, with substantial personal knowledge of patents. This was not a jury of bumpkins with one person by force of knowledge or personality running roughshod over the other jurors.
Jury misconduct in this case, given the quality of the jury members, may not be easy to show. This is perhaps why jury misconduct is not being alleged, at least at this time. Samsungs argument about failure to disclose certain prior court cases is too remote and would be harmless in any case. Then, Samsung would have to argue something specific about Hogan, and not include the other equally capable jurors.
Which other jurors held patents? I wasn't aware of any but that doesn't necessarily mean no others did. I'd be appreciative if you could name the others.
From an interview at CNET with one of the other jurors, Manuel Ilagan:
"The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
What reason did Mr. Hogan give the rest of the jury to convince them they could ignore prior art claims against Apple patents?
Quote: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there. VEL HOGANJury Foreman
But what is the definition of 'Prior art?
Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
So according to another jury member's explanation of how the verdict was arrived at so quickly, it certainly sounds as tho they were swayed by Mr. Hogan's personally-held and incorrect interpretation of the law, directing them to ignore prior art as a defense based on Mr. Hogan's experience as a patent holder himself.
So what parts did I misrepresent again?
My thoughts also. If they knew he was a patent holder himself they should have had him kept off the jury.
No matter what someone says in those kinds of questions, personal experience will be a factor. So you don't let admitted crime victims on such a jury and you don't trust patent holders to be unbiased in a patent trial
If the documents show that they knew the guy was a patent holder', had the means to excuse him and didn't, then they have no right to appeal because of him.
And I agree that if the lawyers weren't asking about personal patent experiences they were dumb and got what they desired in that point. They probably thought they could use the lack of 'knowing' as a reason to appeal if they lost. I hope they try it, get the appeal and lose again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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.
eh? Well, if Samsung's lawyers knew what they were doing, that crucial evidence, which was later leaked to the public, would not have been rejected in the first place (also note, a much greater number of Samsung's evidence/witnesses were rejected vs Apple's witness/evidence).
Furthermore, I don't think it's common for a member of the jury to run in a victory lap giving interviews as to how they came to such a biased verdict. After all, no other member of the jury came forth to speak (well, other than Manuel Ilagan). Seriously, all Hogan had to do was to say "no thank you" and avoid the spotlight as everyone else in the jury did. Hogan's past trouble with Seagate wouldn't have been an issue had he kept his mouth shut. Now, I don't see how Samsung's lawyer could have orchestrated all this - unless, of course, you believe QE lawyers played Jedi mind trick on Hogan.
This guy should have never been let on the jury. Evidence seems to support the idea that he lied about his past as well, and other jurors cited that he influenced their decision.
I'll be shocked if this doesn't get declared a mistrial.
No matter which side of the issue you stand on, it's fairly obvious that the jury didn't play according to the letter of the law, and that they were swayed by Mr. Hogan. And of course, everything came into the open when he gave Bloomberg an interview...
Quote:
THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let’s continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?
Mr. Hogan's statement to media post verdict
Quote:
“I answered every question the judge asked me [and Samsung] had every opportunity to question me. Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”
It's clear that the COURT's questions were definitely "open-ended" and with "no time constraints".
This is CLEARLY a mistrial waiting to happen.
Mr. Hogan was out for revenge.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-denies-misconduct-suggests-conspiracy
I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO. With that said I personally believe it's very likely that Judge Koh will reduce the jury's award, perhaps significantly, and in any case expect an appeal and probably from both Apple and Samsung before it's all over.
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I wouldn't go so far as to claim a mistrial order is clear. There's a high hurdle to cross, one which Samsung is unlikely to clear IMO.
I agree with you there. Although if I was Mr Hogan, I'd stop talking to the press right now as every time he opens his mouth (most recently just three days ago) he's making that hurdle lower and lower for Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
It's a tad closer than that, but not by a lot. Samsung is the majority owner of Seagate, the company that sued and won against Mr. Hogan. The Seagate lawyer in that case is the connection you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Because a lawyer that served on a trial 19 years ago married a lawyer that's a partner for the firm in the Samsung trial? Do you have any idea how tenuous that sounds? That's a very weak motivation in my opinion
You're not seeing the full picture about Samsung's involvement with Seagate.
That happened much later though. Different subsidiary, unrelated industry, new management. Assuming there is revenge, there's no way it would hurt anyone that did anything to him.