Jury In Apple v. Samsung Case May Have to Agree on 700 Points

puddingebola writes "Jurors in the Apple v. Samsung case will receive a 100 page 'instructions to the jury' document. They will also receive a multi-page form with numerous questions to come to a verdict. From the article: 'The document, which both sides have yet to agree on, is still in its draft stage. In Samsung's case, it's 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.' Perhaps this is standard in patent trials? Perhaps road sobriety tests will soon include hopping on one foot while juggling?" As usual, Groklaw has the juicy details on the battle over writing the jury instructions.

Comments

Jury instructions on emails

[daveschroeder]

Another interesting development is that Judge Koh "unexpectedly reversed a lower magistrate's finding and decided to change the jury instructions with regards to the destruction of evidence from Samsung, changing the wording to imply that both Apple and Samsung should be presumed to have destroyed email evidence that could be relevant to the case." and "Despite the fact that there is no evidence that Apple has withheld any such emails, Koh's decision opts to give similar notices about both companies to the jury rather than instruct them on Samsung's deletions only. Koh could have also opted to not mention the evidence spoilation entirely, but chose instead to infer that Apple must also have deleted emails potentially favorable to Samsung's case. Had the previous instructions stood, it would have painted Samsung as more untrustworthy -- a key point in Apple's barrage of evidence."

With Apple and Samsung CEOs holding last-minute talks, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

and Florian was totally wrong. As usual.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple kept automatic "Delete your emails to save space on the servers!" going and did not issue a formal litigation notice (which Apple had a greater right to expect as the one initiating the lawsuit). Apple got an adverse instruction against Samsung for that, when they themselves had failed to take steps to ensure preservation.

Apple was quite honestly (in my opinion) full of shit. Steve Jobs not having a single relevant email to the litigation? Riiiiiiight.

All moot in the end. The tactic got Apple and Samsung to agree to get the instructions against them removed (in exchange, they would agree to get the adverse instruction removed for the other party.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

Florian's opinions are just that, opinions. He was being paid by Oracle as he was going on about how doomed Google was in Oracle v. Google (I will note that Florian and Oracle both allege that the money was for an unrelated matter, not writing about the case).

Grain of salt with Florian. He calls it FOSSPatents but has a noticeable anti-open stance.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[lordbeejee]

I don't understand that this blatant lying by Apple about the mails isn't outright punished, every company I've known urges the higherups to keep their old mails for stuff like this so the judge must know they've been deleted to hide something. Same goes for Samsung, just deleting them and acting like it's normal practise. They should both get penalised instead of cancelling it out when the 2 say 'fuck you' to the courts.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you proportionally punish both parties for the offense? If you place unequal penalties on both parties, you get accused from having a double standard. Equal penalties, and it's a handicap that applies equally. Easiest way is to just cancel it out.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[number6x]

Neither Apple or Samsung are accused of destroying evidence.

Apple accused Samsung of not retaining email from the point in time when Apple requested the lower Court order that evidence be retained, and got the lower Court to issue the original warning. Samsung disputed Apple's opinon. Samsung showed that it did retain emails from the point in time when the Court issued the order to retain evidence, although not from the point in time that Apple made the request. Basically, Samsung's argument is that the Court, not Apple issues these kind of orders.

It turns out that Apple itself did not retain emails until the Court finally ordered it, so they engaged in exactly the same behavior Samsung did. Apple did not start fully retaining

Judge Koh decided that since Apple and Samsung engaged in the exact same behavior regarding saving of potential evidence, they should both get treated exactly the same in Court.

Apple disagrees.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolutely not true; Apple *does not* have central email storage - everyone downloads their mail from the servers and keeps it on their own machines. I know it surprised me too when I worked there. Your email and documents are your problem to back up - it's the lightest touch IT I've ever seen at a big company.

There were so many document retention notices that you basically never deleted anything.

Samsung had a very short auto-deletion policy, and has been called out on this in the past.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the issue was, they did not issue a litigation hold notice in 2010 and their employees failed to preserve relevant emails for the case, and were even automatically encouraged to delete emails via automatic messages indicating to clean the inbox. If it was not a server-side thing, then it was a "clean your inbox and keep it manageable" thing. The court documents don't really make that clear. Either way, Apple was expecting Samsung to preserve emails since 2010 and then say it's fair that they only did it since April 2011.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[travisco_nabisco]

Actually if they are really careful they will not have any emails about issues like this. My wife worked in the office of an public official a few years ago and there were certain things they were not supposed to ever mention in emails, because then they would be archived and available for public request.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of ironic how the Freedom of Information Act breeds all sorts of tricks to keep information secret.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[Anonymous Coward]

"It turns out that Apple itself did not retain emails until the Court finally ordered it, so they engaged in exactly the same behavior Samsung did. "

Actually Samsung started retaining several months before Apple did, even though Apple started the court action and therefore had more fore knowledge of the need to retain evidence.

Apple's lawyers bizarrely argued that Samsung should have known to start retaining emails before Apple did, even though Apple was the initiating party.

Re:Jury instructions on emails

[hazydave]

Neither Samsung nor Apple are part of the US Federal Government. So the FoIA doesn't apply here.

Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Juries are relatively unpaid or underpaid, and I can't imagine any of them devoting serious time to so many different points. Although, I guess it depends on one's integrity.

As a side note, and I realize I'll get modded down as off-topic, should jurors get paid minimum wage? Factor in how many hours are being stolen from their lives, and how little that should really cost given the expenseof everything else involved in the judicial process.

Re:Consider this.

[jellomizer]

I think getting paid minimum wage is probably the best thing they can do.

You don't want "Professional Juries" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible. Then also there is an issue of being fair and getting a good cross section of the population.

The Jury you will often have a guy who makes minimum wage, someone else 20 and hour and someone else 40, 80 an hour. If we pay the people who make more to match their income, then there will be pressure for the judge to get a poorer jury.

Minimum Wage, is enough to keep the jury to try to keep the trial speedy. There is a fair amount of one's integrity, if someone chooses to be a juror (they have plenty of excuses to get out if they want) then it is usually because they are willing to be part of the process, and try to stay just as long to get a fair trial.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens to the jurist who can no longer pay their rent because they were forced to miss too much time from work?

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Codger]

Where I live, jurors get $15 a day for expenses, which barely covers bus fare and lunch in the courthouse cafeteria. Minimum wage? In your dreams.

Re:Consider this.

[mjr167]

They tell you up front how long the trial is expected to last so you tell the court you can't make that committment during the selection process.

Re:Consider this.

[luis_a_espinal]

Juries are relatively unpaid or underpaid, and I can't imagine any of them devoting serious time to so many different points.

From my experience as being in jury duty, I disagree with this generalization. YMMV obviously, but in the end, this is just a generalization.

Although, I guess it depends on one's integrity.

At the risk of engaging into a generalization myself, people that show up to jury duty and get selected might have a bit or two of integrity. Most people simply ignore or forget to go to a jury duty row call. And of those who show, a lot do the most innane of things to avoid getting selected. Things I've seen:

1. A guy saying he didn't believe in the US legal system, and that he felt getting a US citizenship was one of his biggest mistakes.
2. A guy asking if he needs to read stuff because he really didn't like reading
3. Gratuitous mentioning of using drugs

Some people have genuine reasons to ask not being selected (say a doctor, a struggling businessman, or a parent.) But you get some shitheads showing up saying the most bestial of things just to skip jury duty. Those who stay know they'll lose salary and convenience, and still try to remain honest and useful (myself included.) My experience has been that jurors do their best to judge the evidence at hand and to follow the judge's instructions.

Again, YMMV.

As a side note, and I realize I'll get modded down as off-topic, should jurors get paid minimum wage?

Yes. Or maybe not. But it will be unreasonable for the state to compensate everyone at their daily rates for doing a civil service (which is a responsibility that comes with all the rights we have in a civil society.)

Factor in how many hours are being stolen from their lives,

Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)

And no one really forces you to participate if you are really, really cash strapped. You can always ask the selection process to give you a green light to go because of financial duress.

So it is absolutely fucking stupid to use the word "stolen" when it is something that is, much more often than not, a voluntary thing by people who thing it is a fair thing to give back to society some of their time for a very important fabric of civil society: a trial by peers.

and how little that should really cost given the expenseof everything else involved in the judicial process.

The judicial process is already expensive to begin with. It is not unreasonable to ask willing citizens to give some of their time at a lower cost as part of their civic duty to society (in exchange of the many, many, many other things we get.)

Re:Consider this.

[PortHaven]

Ironically, I've wanted to be on a jury. In my entire life I've been called for jury duty once. And wasn't really even questioned.

Meanwhile, I know people who seemed to get called several times in a decade. What gives. I want to be on a jury. Murphy must know...

Re:Consider this.

[dkleinsc]

I can: In my (somewhat limited) experience the people who tend to show up and serve, at least where I live, are at least fairly decent about it, and want to be fair. When I took my turn (I had the time, figured why not), our deliberations were far more based in the facts and the relevant law than either of the attorneys had been throughout the case.

In case you're wondering, we convicted a criminal defendant in a felonious assault: We had the victim's testimony identifying him, DNA evidence from the scene putting him there and holding a weapon, eyewitness evidence having him fleeing the scene and getting into the victim's car, and finally the police catching him in the victim's car with the victim's blood on his jacket, and the hospital evidence showing the results of the attack. And the defense had offered no alternate theory, just tried to insinuate that the victim was a crack whore (which she might have been, but that didn't change the jury's votes).

Re:Consider this.

[AvitarX]

I'm a trial consultant, so I've seen a lot of juries deliberate (a dozen or so, mostly drug related MDL, but some patent things). I've seen them deliberate for 2 and a half days, with one juror missing a Monday from a vacation because of it, and this by choice, when they had the option to not agree at this point. The previous 2 days they stayed till 8 o'clock, carpools were arranged for the jurors that did not have cars.

Say what you want about people, juries tend to work, for 2 reasons:

1) people have good bullshit detectors, in a case like this it's pretty much lay in boring evidence, have opposing experts say what it means, the one with more integrity is generally believed (and this is generally the case).
2) when you take weeks of peoples time away for nothing, they become very invested in doing it right. I'm sure the typical day long criminal case this is not how it works, but when someone has had to sit and listen for weeks with the only purpose of coming to a correct decision, they tend to do it.

I am yet to see a cut and dry case go the wrong way, and only about 10% go the way against what I thought was the correct answer based on the case provided. I find that judges being (IMO) wrong on matters of law (IANAL, though most laws are pretty much common sense, as are the prior rulings) a bigger issue.

Re:Consider this.

[AvitarX]

The jurors really don't have much power to make it longer, and the judge already lets most people with jobs off the hook (unless it's a large corporation or the government).

The type of people motivated by minimum wage are not going to be good jurors, we want the ones motivated by duty (most juries have enough of them).

Re:Consider this.

[chrb]

The ancient Greeks used to treat jury duty like casual work - if you're free, turn up at the court in the morning, get selected randomly, and get paid. Apparently you could actually earn a reasonable wage through this. The advantage is that well-employed people don't have to waste their time (and money) doing jury duty, and the people who turn up have some motivation to do it, and probably prior court experience. The disadvantage is that whole "good cross section of the population" thing.

Re:Consider this.

[chrb]

In many countries, employers are obliged to keep paying an employee full salary while they do jury duty, to prevent exactly the situation you describe. Sacking an employee on jury duty is a criminal offence.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

People have horrible bullshit detectors, otherwise there'd be less bullshit. The expert system as it stands is bullshit, see point one on why people don't detect that.

Re:Consider this.

[Belial6]

That is what I think they should do here. It would solve WAY more problems than it creates.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think getting paid minimum wage is probably the best thing they can do.

You don't want "Professional Juries" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible. Then also there is an issue of being fair and getting a good cross section of the population.

The Jury you will often have a guy who makes minimum wage, someone else 20 and hour and someone else 40, 80 an hour. If we pay the people who make more to match their income, then there will be pressure for the judge to get a poorer jury.

Minimum Wage, is enough to keep the jury to try to keep the trial speedy. There is a fair amount of one's integrity, if someone chooses to be a juror (they have plenty of excuses to get out if they want) then it is usually because they are willing to be part of the process, and try to stay just as long to get a fair trial.

No, minimum wage is not the best they can do - it simply shows a lack of respect for the jury.

"You don't want "Professional Juries" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible."

Many ways to solve that - like pay per trial, rather than by hour.

"The Jury you will often have a guy who makes minimum wage, someone else 20 and hour and someone else 40, 80 an hour. If we pay the people who make more to match their income, then there will be pressure for the judge to get a poorer jury"
WTF do you you think the judge would care? It isn't coming out of his budget.

The jurors are generally treated like cattle every time I have been called for jury duty. There is no reason for this. The jurors should be paid at least as much as the public defenders, etc.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want "Professional Juries" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible.

How about:
You don't want "Professional Consultants" where it is their economic interests to make the project as long as possible.
You don't want "Professional Doctors" where it is their economic interests to make the treatment as long as possible.
You don't want "Professional Taxi drivers" where it is their economic interests to make the journey as long as possible.
You don't want "Professional Builders" where it is their economic interests to make the construction as long as possible.
You don't want "Professional Lawyers" where it is their economic interests to make the trial as long as possible.

Re:Consider this.

[tgd]

Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)

Strange, every year I seem to get about 40% of my salary taken in return for those conveniences.

Re:Consider this.

[AvitarX]

My (admittedly limited, but first hand) experience is completely contrary to your opnion.

Re:Consider this.

[QuantumLeaper]

It $8 a day for the county, as of 11 months ago, when I was call for jury duty. $8 will cover parking and lunch. Both times I have called for jury duty, I didn't get the chance to serve on a jury, just watch the judge question the people that may have serve on the jury. So I had to be there only one day.

Re:Consider this.

[luis_a_espinal]

Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)

Strange, every year I seem to get about 40% of my salary taken in return for those conveniences.

There is always the option of living outside the realm of developed/industrialized civilization. Myself coming from a country where you can pretty much get by without paying so much taxes (Nicaragua, 2nd poorest country in the Western Hemisphere), specially if you make a lot of moolah and have connections, you should give it a try whenever the thought of paying that much off your salary for those conveniences become too much too bear.

Re:Consider this.

[Culture20]

I don't know, I'm inclined to believe GP's BS.

Re:Consider this.

[bjdevil66]

Whether you're paying $6-7/hour or $60/hour, it's going to be a tough haul for some average jurors to stay interested enough to care, let alone keep it all straight in their heads.

Having served on a grand jury in my state for four months (reviewing case, after case, after case, after case... drool), I can attest to how hard it can be to stay focused. When we had a case come up with 30+ counts late in the day, half of the jury would completely zone out, relying on others to make the right choice.

I'm sure the lawyers on both sides are taking that all into account in their strategy sessions. Their arguments will probably have as many "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" soundbytes as they can cram in...

Re:Consider this.

[drinkypoo]

it will be unreasonable for the state to compensate everyone at their daily rates for doing a civil service

Why? The Judge gets paid.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is long overdue to get rid of mandatory jury service. Get a pool of jurors who want to be paid a pittance wage and have multiple days of their lives tied up with a court trial, excuse the rest and never summon them for jury duty again

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

On the other hand, most of those jurors make more than minimum wage normally. Why should their ability to keep the mortgage and car payments up be endangered just because a couple very wealthy corporations can't restrain themselves from behaving like petulant children?

It isn't much better to pass that off on their employer who might be a small business that could actually be pushed over the cliff by such a thing.

Where is the justice in the plaintiff recieving millions (or not) and the jury ends up in foreclosure? If the question at hand isn't worth enough to take proper care of the jury, it isn't worth hearing it in court at all.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

And since nobody wants to make that commitment if the time is much longer than 'this afternoon', the court arbitrarily denies all claims of hardship.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?

Re:Consider this.

[pne]

And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?

They'll have to do whatever they do in other cases where they have to pay money to someone who is not working, for example, a mother during maternity leave or an ill worker during sick leave. I'm not sure jury duty is much different here.

Re:Consider this.

[cduffy]

And if the employer is a small business that can't afford weeks of payroll without the associated profit?

You know, there is such a thing as key person insurance, and if losing the services of an employee would cause you to go under (medical leave happens!), a policy would probably be called for.

Sure, it may be more expensive if you want it to cover extended jury leave, but if that's a business-ending event...

Re:Consider this.

[neminem]

I wanted very badly to be on a jury, too. I thought it would be extremely interesting. Then I got called in the town I was born while I was at college. I was not going to travel several hours and miss school, so I filed for "I don't live here". So then of course the next year I got another jury summons for where I went to school, during the summer. Doh! Finally I got a summons after I graduated, was all excited until I learned that if you're called to show up on a day, you don't get paid anything, work won't cover it, and you probably won't even get on a jury. And if you do get on a jury, you're then paid literally dollars a day (why do they pay you -anything- at that point?)

If work would give me paid time off instead of unpaid, I'd be all like "hell yeah, let me on one of those!" I'm given to understand most don't, though, so you should probably feel kind of lucky.

Re:Consider this.

[neminem]

Amusingly, the case that I finally did get called to be a potential jury for, as I was sitting in the room waiting to get questioned, they came to a settlement. I'd been given a potential case at that point, so I was back out of the pool. So much for that!

Re:Consider this.

[ais523]

Perhaps it would be possible to take out insurance against an employee being called on jury duty. (Companies which have that problem would probably need to insure against employee illness, for much the same reason.)

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

Most small employers don't pay maternity leave, and when they do, they generally have several months notice.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

But why not internalize the externalities of being a litigious bastard and fold it in with the court costs?

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

I could see that for a criminal trial, but why should large corporations get to pass that cost that they created (by suing and suing) off on everyone else?

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, many companies will continue to pay your salary when you are on jury duty, as long as you pay them the jury duty wage. That way the company is out the difference between minimum wage and your normal wage. This is factored into normal business risks.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

At least that demonstrates some sense of responsibility on the court's part.

Re:Consider this.

[cduffy]

But why not internalize the externalities of being a litigious bastard and fold it in with the court costs?

Making legitimate use of the court system prohibitively expensive is a substantial risk here. Moreover, you'd encourage the parties to select juries with lower income potentials rather than an even cross-section... meaning one could end up with less of a jury of peers.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't afford that, how on earth would they afford maternity leave which is much longer and more expensive?

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

Legitimate use of the court system is already prohibitively expensive for the vast majority. However, I could see limiting the costs to a small fraction of the amount in dispute or applying that only to corporations.

If both parties agree that low income jurors are preferred, it seems things should be fair enough.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

They don't, that's how. Did you think this was Europe or something?

Re:Consider this.

[cduffy]

If both parties agree that low income jurors are preferred, it seems things should be fair enough.

A trial regarding (say) someone harmed due to purported negligence in my role as a landlord is less likely to be fair with a minimum-income jury than with an even cross-section... but if I have to risk footing a large bill for lost income to have a non-minimal-income jury, I may not be able to afford that.

The justice system is already weighted enough towards those with means to hire experts, better lawyers, etc -- and encouraging folks to "agree" to something out of financial necessity which may impact their ability to get a fair result isn't necessarily going to help.

Re:Consider this.

[sjames]

That's why I also said I could see limiting the expenses to a small fraction of the dispute. If only the lawyers did that...

Re:Consider this.

[the Gray Mouser]

I think getting paid minimum wage is probably the best thing they can do.

I served jury duty in New Jersey years ago.

The pay has never been raised in something like over a hundred years. You get $5 a day.

They keep you in a room with a small booth in the back that serves lunch. The hamburger, drink, and chips costs more than $5.

Re:Consider this.

[hazydave]

Similar in South Jersey, a couple of years ago... like $5 per day. But the parking was free, and the pizza shop across from the Court House didn't overcharge for a slice. It's a token payment only, not designed in any way to actually compensate you for your lost time. Salaried employees are routinely paid anyway, but hourly workers? I think they're getting hosed.

Re:Consider this.

[hazydave]

Taxes, Jury Duty, and a few other responsibilities are the price of Civilization. For those unhappy with that price, you can always emigrate to ... Nicaragua :-) Or get very rich, since once you make enough in the USA these days, you apparently no longer have the same level of responsibility. Like tgd paying 40% (pretty high), versus Walter "Mitt" Romney paying about 13%.

Re:Consider this.

[the Gray Mouser]

Actually, at the time the "wage" was set, I'm sure $5 was a decent days pay.

They just never adjusted the pay.

Re:Consider this.

[Meski]

Why should they have to? Apple and Samsung should be paying for the juries salary. Not the winning party, the initiating party.

Re:Consider this.

[cduffy]

Why should they have to? Apple and Samsung should be paying for the juries salary. Not the winning party, the initiating party.

Because having justice be only for those who can afford it is a great way to get people enacting private revenge rather than going through the courts.

A 100 pages agreement is normal

[aglider]

for all cases as mad as this very one.

Re:A 100 pages agreement is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how a civil case works, then?

Re:A 100 pages agreement is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed

Re:A 100 pages agreement is normal

[fph il quozientatore]

for all cases as mad as this very one.

They are not mad, they are on crack.

Re:A 100 pages agreement is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just imagining the instructions being almost entirely in the range of:

"The JURY is instructed that the PLAINTIFF has made it clear that the DEFENDANT is to be referred to solely as 'A BUNCH OF POOPY-HEADED MEANIES'. Further, the DEFENDANT has issued explicit legal declaration that the PLAINTIFF shall only be known as 'DOODY-EATING BULLIES'. It should be noted that the PLAINTIFF has responded to this instruction by filing legal documentation (see attached form L-24225-AF(b), as revised in 2001) stating, verbatim, 'Nuh uh!'. The DEFENDANT has, in turn, filed form B-2009-A, placing the counterargument 'Uh huh!' into the legal record. On August 16, 2012, the PLAINTIFF issued another form L-24225-AF(b), restating 'Nuh uh!'. Following which [...]"

WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[alen]

deleting it is one thing, but shouldn't they have backups of their email server?

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

Backups are only kept for 7 days, they're not meant to be long term data archive.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[cdrudge]

Not to mention that Sarbanes-Oxley requires I believe all emails to be retained for 7 years.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Trepidity]

Having good backups would greatly complicate one's ability to accidentally lose email, though, so isn't recommended as enterprise best practice.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

Large companies, especially those in very competitive, patent-riddled industries, often don't back up emails for this very reason.

I worked for a place that automatically deleted email over 3 months old and specifically told us NOT to back them up anywhere else. That the policy was for legal reasons was strongly implied.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that you're incredulous about Apple not having backups of their email server when it is a known fact that Samsung has a company-wide system that outright deletes emails (short of the user taking action to prevent it) and has continued doing so even after being instructed not to due to court cases such as this one where it is known that evidence has been destroyed. Yet they keep doing it. Probably because destroying the evidence is better than keeping it...

But, hey, let's bash Apple because that's cool, right.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[PortHaven]

Let's bash Apple because they're doing the same thing...right?

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not. SOX regulates things related to finance, not every 'where are we going for lunch' email that may be sent in a company.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[BronsCon]

This. Both are wrong for doing it, but Apple is more wrong for calling Samsung out while they, themselves, were doing it. Meanwhile, Samsung was right to point out that Apple was *also* doing it. Had Samsung been the first to point the finger, I would hold the opposite stance.

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Apple is more wrong...

Of course Apple is more wrong. This is Slashdot where Apple is always wrong even if they aren't.

Perhaps Apple pointed it out first because Samsung has done this (deleting relevant emails prior to a court case) in the past and been admonished for doing so. There's a rather obvious trend within the company. Their email system, in fact, is specifically designed to delete emails after a very short period of time. It's their corporate culture to erase documentation of what they're talking about.

But Apple is more wrong...

Re:WTF? Apple doesn't back up email?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is more wrong because as they launched the litigation they knew in advance they should have been retaining their emails but they failed to until court ordered and accused Samsung of being the evil party. This is a little worse that hypocrisy as other poster have mentioned, I think Apple are lucky the Judge offered an even treatment. Still it does not matter now.

Here is how it shakes out

[Anonymous Coward]

From Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257

" There was a lot of back and forth about email spoliation. This revolved around a few points:

First of all, when they established the date by which evidence needed preservation, it became a concern of having a double standard on when Samsung and Apple should have started preserving evidence and putting people on litigation hold. For example, they didn't put Steve Jobs on litigation hold until much later than other people. Judge Koh said something to the effect that surely the plaintiff, Apple, knows better than the defendant when litigation is about to commence. So why, then, didn't it put a litigation hold?

Apple seemed to present more evidence of spoliation on Samsung's part. Samsung however made the argument that they had similar evidence of the same on Apple's part. After arguments by Apple's lawyer, in the end, Judge Koh seemed focused particularly about why Steve Jobs wasn't on litigation hold and the company's policy of automatic notices when your email box gets full.

In the final analysis, Judge Koh said that she was going to make a similar adverse inference on both sides but offered not to do it on either. The Apple lawyer consented to that."

atlas shrugged...

[harvey the nerd]

The gubermint and "law" are out of control, trying to be in total control.

in the immortal words of Bill Hicks (paraphrased)

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of my friends, for instance, think these people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these people are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house: "They're annoying, they're idiots." "They're evil, they're fucks!" Brothers, sisters, come together! Can't we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-fucks? I beseech you. But that's me

(origianlly speaking on the subject of Pro-Lifers)

R.I.P Bill

I'm just a consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Samsung is found guilty I'm happy.

Why?

As far as I'm concerned, it's no skin off my ass who "wins" or "loses".

Apple "wins" then maybe Samsung will just have to figure out how to be more "innovative" (whatever that means these days) with their products and something newer and maybe better comes out - wristwatch touch screen PDA? Eye glasses that do everything the tablet does only with eye movement?

Samsung "wins" then there isn't any of this IP black cloud and the industry is free to come out with less expensive competition.

Then what's Apple going to do if they do win? Go after Google next because of the Nexus 7?

Also if this were Samsung vs. Microsoft, I think folks would be rooting for Samsung.

So, I really don't get why we should care who "wins" or "loses" - unless you're a stockholder in Apple.

Sobriety Test?

[SillyPerson]

I can hop on one foot while juggling when I'm drunk. Just sayin'.

"Perhaps this is standard in patent trials?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"... For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.' Perhaps this is standard in patent trials?"

I sat on a lengthy (nearly 5 week) highly technical case regarding two companies fighting over a patent for a wafer inspection system. This was in a federal court and literally meant tens of millions of dollars and possibly life or death for one of the two companies involved. It was scary that the fate of these companies was in the hands of this group of generally inept people. Due to the length of the trial, many were elderly and had no idea what a "wafer" is, let alone trying to understand the intricacies of a wafer inspection system. Yes, five week of testimony and boxes upon boxes of evidence that followed us into the jury room to deliberate. Now this is only from one experience, but the jury instructions were contained in two, maybe three sheets (it was a few years back) and the final set of questions to decide upon, including damages, if any, had to be at most three pages, if memory serves. Why so many in this case? Is Apple or Samsung trying to cause undue confusion for the jurors? Jurors are your common (in lengthy trials mostly elderly and the unemployed due to the length) so really, these instructions and set of questions to be answered need to be whittled down to the most relevant and basic level possible, not intentionally bloated and confusing, which is what it sounds like they are trying to do. In a lengthy, technical patent case, I guarantee you the jury will be spending more time trying to decipher the instructions and the verbiage behind every question they need to answer than focusing on the facts of the case.

But it seems like there are many ways to play a jury that has nothing at all to do with the facts at all. I was almost dismissed due to my technical background. I had absolutely no knowledge of the case, yet both sides were wary of my background and had more questions for me than any other possible juror. Why? Because I might understand what they were talking about?

Just my $.02 based on one patent trial.

Re:"Perhaps this is standard in patent trials?"

[wierd_w]

Part of the judicial process of a juror requires you to suspend your own personal knowledge of "case matters", such as things like "If you run FSCK on a mounted volume, you are an idiot!", if pertinent to a case involving lost or destroyed data.

In this case, your knowledge of silicon lithography techniques and practices would have to be suspended, in favor of what the court PRESENTS. Only matters presented as fact in the court can be deliberated by the jury. Naturally, this gets abused heavily by both the prosecutor and the defense.

The intent is that outside influences, like "That makes baby jesus cry!" would be prevented from influencing the impartiality of the jury, and helping to assure the fairness of the trial.

Re:"Perhaps this is standard in patent trials?"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the judge made every attempt to get the companies to come to a settlement before hand. Letting a complex patent case actually reach a jury is basically the corporate version of Russian Roulette. But hey, if they've been whining for this long and still can't come to a compromise, they deserve whatever they get.

700 points ?

[mbone]

I bet the rendering is cropped.

Re:700 points ?

[Anonymous Coward]

cropped to 9.7222"?

The one-click form.

[Ostracus]

In Samsung's case, it's 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.

Well that's Apple for you. Going for ease of use.

Jury Nullification?

[ArsenneLupin]

Are these instructions even compatible with the constitution, with a sentence such as the following on page 4:

You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not.

And even without bringing any constitutional arguments about the role of the jury should be, isn't that sentence in logical contradiction with the following, just 2 lines earlier:

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.

I knew that in general judges don't want juries to know about jury nullification, but my understanding was that this was done more via omission (not talking about this particular right of a jury at all), rather than outright lies (spelling out explicitly that this should not be done).
Weird.

Re:Jury Nullification?

[PortHaven]

Nope...usually it is done by outright lies and a statement that the jurists must obey the judge's outline of interpretation.

And it works most of the time, because most people on a jury are uninformed

Re:Jury Nullification?

[ceoyoyo]

You seem to be reading those sentences with a certain bias. The first one literally says that the jury must follow the law, whether or not they agree with it. I don't know what you think that conflicts with in your constitution. You don't want juries deciding that people are murderers, for example, even though they clearly didn't commit murder but the jury doesn't like them.

The second sentence says that the jury must not infer that the judge has an opinion as to the proper verdict. That's not the same thing as interpreting the law.

Re:Jury Nullification?

[number6x]

No, there is no inconsistency...

" You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not."

The Judge acts as an expert on the law. The Judge decides matters of law in Court cases. There is no need for a Jury when it comes to matters of law. This instruction tells the Jury that the Judge will clarify matters of law, and that the jury must follow the law even if they do not agree with the law. For example, one juror may believe that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or something!" This instruction says that it really doesn't matter what the juror thinks about software patents, they must follow the law, period. If the juror wants the law changed they must elect politicians who will change the law, here in Court we just obey the law as it exists.

Courts cannot even review a law all on their own. The parties in the cuase must ask a higher Court for the review. Those party requested reviews can go up to the Supreme Court. The Supremes are the final reviewers.

"You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be."

The Judge decides matters of law, but the Jury will cast their verdict of who wins in disputes between the two parties in the litigation. This jury decision should be made based on the evidence. The Jury makes the call in disputes: Apple says this, Samsung says that; who wins the argument based on evidence?

Ths second instruction is not telling the Jury about decisions on legal matters like the first instruction did. Legal matters are the Judge's call. Disputes between parties are the Jury's call. The Jury must decide their opinions based on evidence and not on what they think the Judge would want.

These are pretty much the same instructions I have received when I have been on a Jury. Worded differently, but same meanings.

Re:Jury Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chief Justice John Jay's charge to the jury in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794):

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/1/case.html

Re:Jury Nullification?

[sjames]

There is a considerable body of precedent in common law that the jury is entitled to return a not guilty verdict if it doesn't agree with the law that would result in guilt.

The judge is not entitled to an explanation of the jury's verdict or how they came to it. If they decide that today is guilt-free Tuesday, so be it.

The jury's ability to nullify law is the final non-violent check on government authority. Even attempting to put an end to it is reasonably seen as a power grab.

In the event that the judge sees that a jury's guilty verdict defies logic, he/she can vacate the guilty verdict (but not a not-guilty verdict unless he can show jury tampering).

Re:Jury Nullification?

[sjames]

That is incorrect. The jury is fully entitled to nullify a law that it does not agree with. If a juror believes that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or something!", he is fully entitled to render a not-guilty verdict without regard for the facts of the case. The Judge is not entitled to an explanation of the verdict. The plaintiff's lawyer has the chance to ask the jurors their opinion on software patents before the trial begins and strike the guy who thinks they're 'like totally bogus' at that time. If there are so many jurors in the pool with that opinion that he runs out of strikes, then , quite simply, his position offends the public and shouldn't prevail anyway.

This is the final check on government power. A juror may not be compelled to act against his conscience.

And if you're lucky...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

...one of the jurors will have read it.

A question from the jury

[ignavus]

Clerk of the court: Your Honour, the jury wuold like to ask a question.

Judge: Very well, clerk of the court. What is the question?

Clerk of the court: It is - and I quote - "Say what?"

Road sobriety tests

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps road sobriety tests will soon include hopping on one foot while juggling?"

Dear sir:

Please be advised that our company has a broad patent pending on the use of certain arm movements and leg movements during tests for impairment. While these patents do not cover long-established road sobriety techniques like attempting to walk a straight line or attempting to touch the nose with a hand that was previously outstretched, these patents will cover novel techniques of testing sobriety including hopping on one foot, juggling, and doing both together.

To obtain a license for this patent, please reply to this message. Our standard charge is $1 per use or $1000 per 2000 uses, with a minimum charge of $100.

Be sure to include your name, contact information, and credit card number or bank account number and routing information, and the number of uses you wish to purchase.

We will not bill you until the patent is issued. We promise.

A fine example..

[Anonymous Coward]

of just why a Jury is a Bad Idea®.

Re:A fine example..

[Anonymous Coward]

of just why a Jury is a Bad Idea®.

Yeah... what was so wrong with torches and pitch forks? Or dunking? Throw both parties into the pond and whomever floats is using witchcraft, so burn them.

"Par for the course"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And only a lawyer could comment thus (from the TFA):

"It's actually par for the course," says Pierre Yanney, a partner with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

"Par for the course"? For any sane person this seems batshit crazy.

restate the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

To restate the obvious: The jury verdict is meaningless here, the case will be decided on the appellate level. The sole effect of the trial is to transfer large sums from the bank accounts of Apple and Samsung to the accounts of the law firms.

Children

[Kunax]

Clearly these 2 children have learn nothing, time for a little punishment. Give 1 of the a shovel and the other a bucket, then tell them they have 1 week create an awesome sand castle, together. if they after said week still do not know how to work together all patents are void.

In a more fitting world

[ThatsNotPudding]

the closing arguements would be given by Lionel Hutz and the Space Chicken lawyer.

Kind off silly

[AssholeMcGee]

I read some comments on Jury duty, It is almost impossible to find a Jury that can actually do what is asked of them. There is no doubt the Jurors will picks sides in a case, few people think for themselves to begin with in this country and now you want them to handle being a Juror? The 100 page instruction by the Judge is amusing, but your allowing both sides to come up with there own questions for the Jury to answer. With Samsung mentioning how Apple apparently stole others innovations, how much longer can Apple continue to go around suing other companies on insignificant patents, without some type of investigation on how they obtained or stole there ideas. Obviously it has been talked about endlessly by slashdot how horrible the Patent system is but someone needs to end this.

Re:Jury Nullification

[bussdriver]

Juries can be nailed for a ton of things but are immune from being punished for their verdict. They can have any verdict they want including throwing out the laws in the case or saying the judge is an asshat. The judge can chuck their verdict but can't touch them. Appeals court gets a lot of this stuff so it doesn't matter a whole lot what the jury does.

HP could sue Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

HP Slate 500 were released before iPad:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/wpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/HPSlate.jpg