I'm more inclined to think Samsung knew about this guy from the start but kept him on the jury to they could it as a (weak) chance to get the cad thrown out if they lost.
I think the evidence points at exactly that conclusion.
The day after (maybe it was even the day of) the verdict, the Samsung astroturfing army was already hitting the tech site forums, and who knows where else, with this tale of "jury misconduct". They didn't even need time to investigate, they already knew all about his history. If they thought it was a problem before the trial (and they probably knew about it then), they should have had him excluded from the jury, if they knew about it during the trial (and they certainly did), they should have asked for him to be replaced. Instead, they hit the ground running with this "story" immediately after the verdict was announced. It seems pretty clear they kept what they knew about him in their pocket, hoping they could pull it out if they lost and use it to nullify the result.
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. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
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. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
Sharing a post I just made on Ars:
CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!! Someone should follow and see if there is a money trail between this guy and Samsung. Imagine if Samsung found out about this guy and knew of his strong patent beliefs and paid him to play it safe to get on the jury and then guide things in the jury room. Then post trial to say the things he did. It would be some real brilliance (which is the opposite of what we have seen from Samsung's lawyers, which is what makes it so far-fetched) to set themselves up w/a potential juror misconduct.
Note: I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's something that occurs as a possibility
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. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's.
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.
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's.
Pay no attention, that's just GG, doing his PR spin thing that he comes here to do.
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".
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..... BLAH BLAH....
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.
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.
Exactly. 19 years is a hell of a long time. If I were sued I doubt I would remember the name of the attorney 5 years after the fact, and I certainly wouldn't know who he or she was married to.
And the fact that Samsung and Seagate are "strategic partners" is relevant how? I doubt that was mentioned at trial.
This sounds little different from "19 years ago Joe ran over this guys cat; Joe worked for 7-11 and married Mary. Mary works at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart and 7-11 both sell stuff, so this guy should be ineligable to be on a trial involving Wal-Mart."
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.
You lost!! Pay and shut up and come out with your own ideas. Make a sweet phone that has a holographic player and people will buy that instead of the iPhone.
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
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?
Comments
Already seen them. Not sure what relevance they have here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm more inclined to think Samsung knew about this guy from the start but kept him on the jury to they could it as a (weak) chance to get the cad thrown out if they lost.
I think the evidence points at exactly that conclusion.
The day after (maybe it was even the day of) the verdict, the Samsung astroturfing army was already hitting the tech site forums, and who knows where else, with this tale of "jury misconduct". They didn't even need time to investigate, they already knew all about his history. If they thought it was a problem before the trial (and they probably knew about it then), they should have had him excluded from the jury, if they knew about it during the trial (and they certainly did), they should have asked for him to be replaced. Instead, they hit the ground running with this "story" immediately after the verdict was announced. It seems pretty clear they kept what they knew about him in their pocket, hoping they could pull it out if they lost and use it to nullify the result.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
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. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
Sharing a post I just made on Ars:
CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!! Someone should follow and see if there is a money trail between this guy and Samsung. Imagine if Samsung found out about this guy and knew of his strong patent beliefs and paid him to play it safe to get on the jury and then guide things in the jury room. Then post trial to say the things he did. It would be some real brilliance (which is the opposite of what we have seen from Samsung's lawyers, which is what makes it so far-fetched) to set themselves up w/a potential juror misconduct.
Note: I don't actually believe this is the case, but it's something that occurs as a possibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
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. It is human nature and this is why they spend so much time interviewing potential jurors. Samsung should be suing its lawyers since they screw up and obviously did not ask him the right questions. The guys an engineer and they answer exactly what they are asked and you failure to not to ask the right question is not their failure to give you what you were really looking for.
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's.
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.
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion
There's nothing wrong with an individual jury member having an opinion about the evidence that convinces other jury members. That's a standard part of jury deliberations. After all, didn't the lawyers on both sides primarily focus on swaying the jury towards their own personal interpretation of the evidence? Samsung's interpretation of prior art in this case is obviously not going to be the same as Apple's.
Pay no attention, that's just GG, doing his PR spin thing that he comes here to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
What does that even mean?
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
What does that even mean?
Figures....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleGuy
Is Samsung trailing after the jury? Are they the Korean Mafia? Are they trying to bump off the jury?
Absurd.
Whether Samsung has a case here or not, Mr. Hogan is guilty of being a blabbermouth.
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..... BLAH BLAH....
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
Exactly. 19 years is a hell of a long time. If I were sued I doubt I would remember the name of the attorney 5 years after the fact, and I certainly wouldn't know who he or she was married to.
And the fact that Samsung and Seagate are "strategic partners" is relevant how? I doubt that was mentioned at trial.
This sounds little different from "19 years ago Joe ran over this guys cat; Joe worked for 7-11 and married Mary. Mary works at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart and 7-11 both sell stuff, so this guy should be ineligable to be on a trial involving Wal-Mart."
If they suddenly sell 50,000 fewer fridges in the coming year....that appliance division will come down hard on Samsung's mobile group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
^ THIS is why Samsung have a reasonably good chance of actually getting a new trial.
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?
I think Sammy (Samesung, Samscum) knew this guy's history. They had a weak case and was looking for a way to have an appeal when they lost.