Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
for all cases as mad as this very one.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
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."
Not to mention that Sarbanes-Oxley requires I believe all emails to be retained for 7 years.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Having good backups would greatly complicate one's ability to accidentally lose email, though, so isn't recommended as enterprise best practice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
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.)
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?"
I am anarch of all I survey.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
No, there is no inconsistency...
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.
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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.