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
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.
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.
Well samsuck can be charged with jury tampering, if they knew this guy had lost a suit against seagates lawyer, the same lawyer for samsuck. If they didn't ask him to be excused, knowing his past, then after losing the case, claim a mistrial. Clear manipulation of the legal system. But it is samsuck. A company that has been guilty of bribing government officials, and politicians, paying suppliers to withhold parts from its competitors and stealing IP from its competitors and ignoring googles clear instructions NOT to add unlicensed IP onto their phones. What grubs, and they want anyone to believe they didn't know this before hand? Pigs…….. Make it $2 billion, just to make them pay attention instead of playing this charade.
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.
Once again, Samsung reveals their own incompetence during the trial, since their own legal team had the means to know about this. Now they want to have the trial dismissed because they were incompetent. Nice try, but if the judge falls for this, we'll see defence lawyers increasingly adopt such a strategy of poisoning the trial, as Samsung clearly did at numerous times during this one (releasing evidence, unlicensed trial lawyers, and now keeping jurors in that they had something on all along).
Seems like a tenuous chain of connections. How likely is it that he knew about the lawyer from the old case being married to a partner of the law firm in the new case?
Is this man currently employed? What was his cost to be on the jury? How much length and cost would he go over that amount of money 19 years later?
Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.
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.
Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.
Speaking of spelunking, I want to watch Batman Begins again, followed by The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.
Expect more of this from Samsung. The amount of money at stake is so high that they will not stop willingly.
I'm sure you are right. If Scamsung simply stuck to designing their own things none of this would have happened in the first place, no one to blame but themselves, oh and Google of course. I guess if all these companies hadn't been handed a free rip off of iOS in the first place ....
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? And why did he feel compelled to "spill the beans" during that interview. From what I have read, had that interview never taken place, Samsung would have nothing to say at this point.
Why is it wrong for this guy to give an interview but not wrong for Samsung to go to the media with information that the judge specifically asked not to be sent out?
Samsung's leak was a calculated move, but I think this guy's interview was more of an emotional response. The guy was the jury foreman on one of the most high profile patent infringement cases and was part of the jury that handed a substantial (subjective) penalty to Samsung. Of course he is going to bask in all the limelight he can get and milk the trial for all it's worth.
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.
Comments
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
go play on an android site.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Don't shoot the messenger.
When the messenger is the guy that wrote the message…
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
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.
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When the messenger is the guy that wrote the message…
What does that even mean?
Originally Posted by stike vomit
What does that even mean?
… I fail to see how it could be written any more clearly.
Well samsuck can be charged with jury tampering, if they knew this guy had lost a suit against seagates lawyer, the same lawyer for samsuck. If they didn't ask him to be excused, knowing his past, then after losing the case, claim a mistrial. Clear manipulation of the legal system. But it is samsuck. A company that has been guilty of bribing government officials, and politicians, paying suppliers to withhold parts from its competitors and stealing IP from its competitors and ignoring googles clear instructions NOT to add unlicensed IP onto their phones. What grubs, and they want anyone to believe they didn't know this before hand? Pigs…….. Make it $2 billion, just to make them pay attention instead of playing this charade.
Dear Samsung:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
from Groklaw
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.
Sometimes, you just have to admire Samsung's ability to grasp even the shortest of straws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
… I fail to see how it could be written any more clearly.
Agreed.
Is this man currently employed? What was his cost to be on the jury? How much length and cost would he go over that amount of money 19 years later?
Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.
Speaking of spelunking, I want to watch Batman Begins again, followed by The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.
I'm sure you are right. If Scamsung simply stuck to designing their own things none of this would have happened in the first place, no one to blame but themselves, oh and Google of course. I guess if all these companies hadn't been handed a free rip off of iOS in the first place ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
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? And why did he feel compelled to "spill the beans" during that interview. From what I have read, had that interview never taken place, Samsung would have nothing to say at this point.
Why is it wrong for this guy to give an interview but not wrong for Samsung to go to the media with information that the judge specifically asked not to be sent out?
Samsung's leak was a calculated move, but I think this guy's interview was more of an emotional response. The guy was the jury foreman on one of the most high profile patent infringement cases and was part of the jury that handed a substantial (subjective) penalty to Samsung. Of course he is going to bask in all the limelight he can get and milk the trial for all it's worth.
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.