Slashdot Mirror
Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info
thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."
The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
So has Hurricane Sandy. Perception is not the issue.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Not biased -- I'd say wrong here and there -- but wrong isn't the same as biased.
True but unlike an election or a hurricane, these patent lawsuits seem to last forever.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
She's blocked Samsung's evidence on technicalities all the way through. Samsung should have taken this elsewhere, Koh has proved to be suspiciously in favor of Apple at every turn.
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.
that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!
The election sadly seemed to last forever...
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
And order in the universe was (or will be) restored. Apple has a long and pathetic history of loosing lawsuits from both sides, a big victory like this left an imbalance that needed to be corrected.
Any improprietory or error Samsung (or Apple, for that matter) believes occurred in the trial court can be (and, rest assured, will be) raised on appeal. Until that, the trial court judge is responsible for the case.
Saying that someone has a bias without even offering a modicum of evidence is kinda of a smear. It's like if I said, "Some have people said that daboochmeister makes baseless accusations about people in order to discredit them". Oh wait...
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
Well, I suppose loosing a suit is better than being slapped with one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-02-25/
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
So yeah, I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).
Kinda of a smear, eh? I'll make an allegation of illiteracy, and now I've got evidence.
Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Probably wanted to steal Apple's patented swipe-to-grill gesture.
This is the first I've heard of the judge being biased. So, "abounds" may not apply in this case.
Yeah, it would have been nice if TFS had mentioned that the juror's patent lawsuit actually had some relevance, instead of just calling it a generic "status as a former patent case plaintiff".
The jury's verdict has been recorded. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable. Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented. These motions are hardly ever granted, and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.
The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:
During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation. Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.
Emphasis mine.
I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert)
THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.
Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.
And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Is Samsung a licensee of Google's new patent on guilt-by-association?
Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Samsung is the Seagate's second largest shareholder.
OFN my friend: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-samsung-seagate-idUSTRE73I1CG20110419
1) Seagate completed an acquisition of the Samsung's HDD business in Dec 2011
2) Samsung is a major share-holder in Seagate (possibly as a result of the above)
Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.
I'm sure you can provide a link to some of that evidence, since it's abounding all over the place?
How about providing one single fucking link of this so-called bias? Go on, I'll wait.
It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165
I haven't followed much of this Apple vs. Samsung but this slide from a presentation caught my attention:
The Tube Business in the ’20s
[snip]
Tube Shops’ Challenges
Design around ~250 RCA triode patents
– Enormously difficult task (Samsung vs Apple case)
– RCA had shut down Sylvania’s tube business
– Ordering materials difficult (Corning in NY)
Hired locally (many hams); got resources from IT&T (French engineers)
– Eitel, Litton collaborated with each other (novel!)
– Based on friendships over the years
– Didn’t compete with other’s market
Worked closely with patent attorneys
paraphrase from other slides:
Eimac (Eitel, Litton) made tubes that work on VHF after WWII, RCA tubes did not work. Eimac sued RCA and GE. Let them buy Eimac products and resell them under their own names.
PDF of slides from which above info, http://www.cpmt.org/scv/meetings/cpmt1209l.html
mfwright@batnet.com
But did he even know about that relationship? I sure didn't before this aspect of this case.
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.
Uh, widely perceived as having a bias... by those with a bias?
Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate
Samsung didn't own any part of Seagate 19 years ago. And to be honest, if I had a dislike for a company (for example Seagate), and it then turns out the company makes bad business decisions, has to sell up, and someone gobbles up the remains, I wouldn't feel any anger against the new owners. If I was so interested in the company that I actually knew there were new owners.
Blocked Samsung's counterpoint to late accusations from Apple, even though the submission from Samsung
a) couldn't have been put any earlier because that would require time travel to go back in time before Apple made the accusation
b) was within the limits of submission of evidence.
So, you were saying...?
So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
The election sadly seemed to last forever...
Don't worry. The campaigns for the 2014 elections will be starting in 6 months.
"And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?"
No, I read about Samsung filing a motion for a new trial and learned of its connection to Seagate then. A connection which several other posters have outlined so I won't restate it but suffice it to say that the judgement rendered from this case will affect Seagate by way of affecting Samsung. And Mr. Hogan having basically been bankrupted by Seagate hugely suggests he could not be relied upon for impartiality, his misapplication of the judge's charge to the jury notwithstanding.
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO.
Look, I'll agree she ran this trial like a "why can't we all just love Apple" circus. But when Apple issued it's IPO in 1980, Lucy (born in 1968) hadn't even hit puberty yet.
you know Occam's Razor, right
Something about 12 year old girls probably not holding large stock portfolios from clients of companies they'll work for 20 years later (2000-2002)?
I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in... Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL."
Actually, there is the hurdle of timing that Samsung has to jump before even getting to the issue of whether Mr. Hogan misconducted himself.
Apple's response to Samsung's motion for a new trial was to state that Samsung knew or should have known of these issues (Hogan's lawsuit with Seagate and the subsequent bankruptcy) at the time of jury selection and should have made those objections at that time and since Samsung did not then they waived the right to make those objections.
In general, if you don't make objections in a timely manner then they are considered to be waived. The most notable exceptions to that are things like your constitutional rights, which can be invoked at any time even if previously waived. If the judge accepts Apple's contention that Samsung knew or should have known of these issues at the time of jury selection then it's seems likely that the judge will waive those objections for not being made in a timely manner.
Samsung definitely knew Mr. Hogan had been sued but I don't believe they knew that lawsuite involved Seagate. But the fact that they did not research the litigation Mr. Hogan mentioned I think is a fundamental failure on Samsung's part.
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
From here:
According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house."
That suit against Seagate was over breach of contract and fraud, not patents.
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
I would not even give them that much information. Say nothing unless you are actually in court. Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you. It almost never help you. Police can bring up things that you said but they are under no obligation to bring up how it was used in context or everything you said. Just the selected pieces and parts that fits their agenda.
http://lawiscool.com/2009/04/16/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police/
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
The juror's behavior amounts to this, while in voir dire for a rape crime.
Judge: "Have you or any one close to you ever been charged with a sex crime?"
Juror: "-sigh- I was charged with indecency for peeing in a dumpster behind a school when I was 19."
And then not mentioning the rape charges 5 years later...
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
The juror wasn't on trial nor was he being audited. He was being vetted as a juror. Not disclosing material information is a waste of everyone's time.
True, but that's the problem and the lie of omission.
If he had just said yes, then there could have been followup asking for full disclosure. But, since he said yes and then gave a followup immediately it would be natural for anyone to think that his followup was complete. Thus, he's guilty of omitting pertinent details that may have affected his standing.
Here's an example (only hypothetical):
Question: "Have you ever been arrested in Texas?"
My Answer: "Yes, I was detained for disorderly conduct but was acquitted"
Result: Most of the people hearing that would think that was all and go about their business.
The real story: The above is true, but I was also arrested for several other possibly relevant crimes.
What happens when they find out: a shit storm
Sure, the people doing the questioning failed to be exactly precise, but that doesn't mean I wasn't hiding something.
I'd still like to know the value of the Apple shares she owns (or as that's a sliding number atm, the amount she holds). Appears she worked for the company that handled Apple IP issues before, and received Apple stock. I think that shows a bias if true, so would like to know how much she holds.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Having been a party in a similar (in nature) suit might tend to produce a strong bias.
Perception is not the issue.
Smoke is not the issue ... unless it indicates there's a fire. She blocked Samsung evidence in widely criticized ways, and on in some cases less than flimsy technicalities.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.
FTC staff have formally advised that the Federal government sue Google for anti-trust violations in its licensing of FRAND patents.
How about Samsung being sanctioned over email retention, despite retaining emails earlier than Apple, even though Apple knew early that legal action would ensue.
You want a link? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120729091631834
Now, fuck off.
What? I have a feeling you're too young to understand what you just said, or you watch Fox news. If the judge was "widely thought to have a bias" ( and by that I think you mean a material bias since everyone has their own biases ) Samsung would have acted to get her dismissed or disbarred.
You personally and all of your friends who agree with you are the ones that think she has a bias.
She has shown a great amount of tolerance to both sides in this trial. Samsung in particular has gotten away with procedural mistakes that would have caused a normal individual to individual case to get immediately thrown out of court.
Why would you have a problem with this? I'd be worried if she was using truly flimsy, or more than flimsy, technicalities.
Captcha: quashed
If you are under oath in a courtroom, that's a completely legitimate answer. You're never supposed to assume anything. If you're asked a question like that you give them an answer. If the lawyer or judge is foolish enough to word it that way, they have no right to know the "real story" because they didn't ask, and you didn't withhold.
A good lawyer would ask "how many times have you been arrested?" "Please tell us the charges for each event in Texas"
Were you "did any go to trial?"
etc... in order to get a precise answer.
I Despise the Fandroid approach to all of this...People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse. The only reason it doesn't upset you t only because you want Android to be a success and you can't imagine success without copying Apple.
Which is not the same thing as judgement being entered.
True.
Well, that's the dictionary definition of a judgement as a matter of law, but the actual Samsung motion isn't a simple JMOL, it is, strictly speaking, a motion for a judgement as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur. The parts specifically seeking a JMOL as one of the alternative remedies necessarily -- because that's the standard for a JMOL -- argues that no result other than the judgement it seeks is proper under any reasonable view of the facts presented at trial. But the first part of that motion isn't seekign a JMOL with a new trial as an alternative remedy for the same error, its a straight-up request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, which isn't at all about what could be reasonably found based on the evidence presented, but arguing that jury misconduct warranting a new trial independently of what could or could not reasonably be concluded from the evidence presented at trial occurred and must result in a new trial unless one of the other elements of the motion supporting a JMOL is granted.
Which, if the granting of such motions were completely random, would justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung is likely to lose at trial, but still wouldn't justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung has already lost. Of course, granting of JMOL motions isn't random, so the overall frequency with which they are granted, standing on its own, doesn't even justify the "likely to lose" characterization, much less the "lost" characterization. Less abstractly, its worth noting that jurors hardly ever go bragging to the media about how they convinced the rest of the jury to use specific legal standards in coming to a verdict which were not the standards in the jury instructions after the verdict but before the process in the trial court is complete, which may have some significant relationship to the frequency with which motions of the type at issue here (motions for a new trial based on jury misconduct) are granted by trial courts.
Of course they are. Any litigant in a case of any importance is looking beyond the trial court decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for prevailing on claims at appeal before the case even gets to the point of trial. That's just fundamental trial practice. And on some of the parts of the motion for judgement as a matter of law, new trial, or remittur that address a JMOL in the narrow sense (i.e., other than the remittitur claims or the new trial issue relating to juror misconduct), which largely address legal questions on which they the trial court has already sided with the other side at least once, they probably are primarily building an appellate record. OTOH, on the issues which have not yet been addressed by the trial court -- such as the jury misconduct issue -- there is no justification for the claim that they aren't primarily interested in getting a favorable ruling by the trial court.
A cursory search of the Internet reveals that Mr. Foreman is quite the fan of Apple products, and also has a long history, predating the case, of voicing public prejudice against Samsung.
He no doubt lied to get on the jury so he could push his own personal agenda.
Except in this case, Seagate bought up Samsung's HDD division. They bought it with Seagate shares.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Indeed and having filed a civil suit isn't going to get you arrested or charged elsewhere. The absolute worst case scenario for a juror disclosing something that the judge asks about is not being seated on that jury. The judge and the attorneys aren't going to be sanctioning jurors for having filed a civil suit. And even with previous crimes, those sentences and penalties have already been dealt with.
Unless somebody knows that they've not been tried for a criminal offense, there's absolutely no reason not to disclose everything that the judge is asking about or that you think might be relevant. You're encouraged to ask questions if you're not clear about what's being asked.
Samsung in particular has gotten away with procedural mistakes that would have caused a normal individual to individual case to get immediately thrown out of court
samsung the one being sued you mongoloid, they would have LOVED to get the case thrown out.
I have a feeling you're too young to understand what you just said
i have a feeling that the only thing you have going for you is your age
People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse.
I'm torn on the Samsung issue. Motorola though, and FRAND? Apple was offered the chance to join the FRAND pool and get access for free if they would just cough up some of the patents they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness and said no. Then they wanted to get the same kind of pricing members of the pool get, and Motorola said no. That's somehow wrong? I think not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
No it doesn't. BUT if the judge asks you if you have ever sued, or been sued, and you answer in the negative... When you have been sued, well that could be grounds for dismissal.
In which case, Apple have done the other side's job: get the case thrown out.
I think you need to revisit that. While you are correct in your opinion, you are also half informed. ;)