Slashdot Mirror
Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung
quantr writes with the news that Apple claims that the company "wasn't aware during trial that the foreman of the jury that issued a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung Electronics Co. was involved in a lawsuit with his former employer, Seagate Technology Inc. 'Samsung asked Apple to disclose when it first learned about the litigation between the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, and Seagate. Apple responded in a filing yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California. Samsung is attempting to get the Aug. 24 verdict thrown out based on claims the trial was tainted by the foreman's failure during jury selection to tell U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, who presided over the case, that he filed for bankruptcy in 1993 and was sued by Seagate."
There's a big difference between having bought a product from one of the parties to a lawsuit and being a former employee who sued one of them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
i wouldn't say samsung infringed, cause fact in this trial the jury pretty much ignored their instructions when it came to prior art. Even in post interviews they admitted they did, and speed through the sheet.
God damnit slashdot editors, pull your head out of your asses...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/apple-says-it-was-unaware-of-samsung-jury-foreman-s-suit
Fix typo please.
"Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung"
should read
"Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Seagate"
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The issue is not Samsung's investment in Seagate...the issue is the jurors were asked if they had been involved as either a defendant or plaintiff in civil litigation before and the foreman specifically omitted the Seagate lawsuit.
I'm not sure why this particular filing is important....Apple filed a similar motion asking Samsung to divulge when it first learned of the foreman's involvement in a Seagate lawsuit.
None of this seems as relevant as the foreman's apparent failure to actually consider the case on its own merit and rather substituting his own personal views/knowledge of patent law (which seems to be wildly incorrect based on comments both by the foreman and other jurors).
None of this seems as relevant as the foreman's apparent failure to actually consider the case on its own merit and rather substituting his own personal views/knowledge of patent law (which seems to be wildly incorrect based on comments both by the foreman and other jurors).
I'm not sure this matters. Remember that the jury is free to completely throw out the law if they like (Jury annulment). In general the decision of the jury cannot be questioned, even if their reason for coming to the verdict was, "I don't like police."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are actually several issues with regard to this jury foreman.
The first of which is that he was sued by Seagate, which not only bankrupted him but also put his house into foreclosure. That is something that I am sure he will never forget and he will be biased against any entity that has favorable dealings with the company that *ruined* him until his end of days. Now, I agree with you that if this was *all* the evidence against this man, that is grasping at straws.
However, there is also the issue that this man, as jury foreman, used his position in the jury to sway the other jury members to make a ruling that was in direct conflict with the instructions handed down by the judge; then he *went on record* bragging about it. So, not only does he have an MO, he also acted in a manner that suggests prejudice/bias.
Lastly, he lied during the jury selection process so that he would be put on the jury. That in and of itself also demonstrates bias.
Face it, this man had an agenda and he followed through on that agenda. There is a reason why this is the one flagship case Apple brings up every time they lose another case in another jurisdiction; and this "win" is in serious jeopardy.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
And the issue they were having trouble with was they did not believe there could not be prior art. And that is where the foreman stepped in and told them as an expert in patents that the prior art they had been shown could not be valid because it ran on a different processor.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Let me suggest you take off your cupertino-colored glasses and educate yourself on the facts.
1. Samsung sold its hard drive business to Seagate and received stock in return. So much stock that Samsung is now Seagate's largest shareholder.
2. The judge asked the questions. Not the lawyers.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!