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]

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

[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: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: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.)