Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation
sfcrazy writes "Samsung is clearly accusing Hogan in its recent filing of influencing the jury in favor of Apple. Samsung said in its filing: 'Mr. Hogan's own statements to the media suffice if such a showing is required. Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together. Contrary to this Court's instructions, he told other jurors incorrectly that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is "entirely different"; that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was "interchangeable"; and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use. He thus failed "to listen to the evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, [and] to follow the judge's instructions."'"
They also allege that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I dunno about paying costs, that would leave him in RIAA-style life long debt. But a reasonable contempt of court fine could be justified -- though I don't know if that is legal. In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing, but in this case it seems to have swung the other way completely (assuming Samsung's accusations are true).
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Duh, he couldn't even get out of Jury duty.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Some of the statements he made after the trial, he seemed to be enjoying the limelight until he realised what a hole he was digging and seemed to shut up. I was mind-blown.
He actually seemed proud, of the fact that he was able to convince the other jurors that they could ignore the "prior art" arguments because they were "bogging us down".
He stated very matter of factly, that the trial was over from day one when Apple presented their "smoking gun" which, in fact, turned out to be quite the opposite to anybody who actually READS the thing now that the unredacted documents are available, and didn't just look at Apple's cherry-picking and assumption leaping.
He ignored the judge's instructions as to how to calculate the award amount (and seemed quite proud of the 'punishment' he awarded (paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to look it up): "I approached it by thinking, what if these were MY patents", and "so we made an appropriately painful award").
The award amount itself was sent back to the jury room how many times, because they couldn't do simple arithmetic (and such was their hurry to get out of there, they awarded a few tens of millions even for things they said DIDN'T infringe).
The whole trial was a farce... Declaring mistrials is very uncommon but this travesty needs to be one of the exceptions.
it was Apple which probed Samsung's timing of their knowledge about Hogan's past.... a question which they themselves failed to answer when Samsung's lawyers filed a rebuttal. Very strange... looks like Apple could get hoisted by their own petard... and rightfully so!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
When this happened, I was mulling over my position on jury nullification, and came to the conclusion that it is an important tool as a limit on state power. However, in a civil case it gets a lot more difficult. We need a stable set of rules so we know where the boundaries are, otherwise we are no better than a third world country where graft is the norm. The problem is now that civil damages exceed what criminal damages can do to an individual, where do we draw the line? Do we say Jury nullification is okay to be used when excessive damages are awarded for file sharing? Okay, then why is that different than patent infringement? I like jury nullification. Unfortunately every time I've been in voir dire, and admitted to the ability to use it, I've been thrown out. For jury nullification to be a valid defense against the state (and corporation too?), it must be used properly. It doesn't feel to me like it was used properly in the Samsung/Apple case.
Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together.
So, he talked out of his ass.
He must be a regular here on Slashdot! And he probably has karma out the Yin Yang to boot!
We need some real answers, not AC speculation.
1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?
2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?
3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing...
Don't get confused about this. This has nothing to do with "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a very specific and very limited situation. It is your right not to give a criminal conviction to a person who you believe is actually guilty according to the law or who you are told is guilty by the judge. In other words, it is that you can't be forced to give a guilty verdict which you would consider to be deeply morally wrong.
This doesn't give the jury the right to decide anything they want. For example, in a criminal trial you can give a not guilty verdict even if you think the person probably did break the law. You cannot, however, give a guilty verdict if you think the person didn't do the crime but probably did something else bad.
In a civil trial, the jury should only decide what they think is most likely to be true. There's no opportunity for jury nullification since there's no guilty verdict available at all.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Actually, juror statements after the fact CAN be called into question. While the Court and the litigating parties have no direct sway over what happens inside the deliberation chambers, if the jurors go on public record after the fact, that may cause grounds for further examination of the verdict. It's more accurate to say, what happens in the jury room may only be revealed by the jurors themselves - which they did, in this case. What makes this situation ironic is that Hogan blabbed about it and wouldn't shut up. Had his ego not demanded he talk to the press about it - a lot - and that he stand on his soapbox, Samsung would have had a far weaker argument of juror misconduct.
The bar for proving juror misconduct is very high, and lawyers are usually reluctant to play that card. By going on the record to the media, Hogan is making Samsung's case much, much easier.
----------
Something cleverOr you could, you know, DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY and not try to get out of jury duty.
Tired of "idiots" on juries? Serve on one yourself.
Reading through Samsung's submission over at Groklaw, the whole juror misconduct is a rather minor part.
It goes on for pages about Apple's arguments during trial and disputes their claims, for example:
It goes on like this for pages and makes a very compelling argument.
Picking random yahoos off the sidewalk, making sure they're sufficiently clueless/pliable, then subjecting them to a barrage of conceptually complex technical and legal points, from experts and lawyers from top schools and companies, and expect them to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions.
Imagine doing medicine or bridge/building design the same way.
This might have worked for a low tech agrarian society. But it is not a reliable decision-making system today. The jury system is at best cute and quaint, but certainly not a reliable way to reach accurate and reasonable conclusions.