Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Claims Ignorance of Jury Foreman's Previous Tangle With Samsung

Posted by timothy on Saturday December 1, 2012 @03:26AM from the no-idea-yerhonor dept.

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."

130 of 186 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What's up! by stevew · 2012-12-01 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why did it take them so bloody long to reply then?

--
Have you compiled your kernel today??
1. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 03:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You saw how long it took them to update their website right ;)
2. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 03:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because in 2012 the truth doesn't matter, only what can be proven. So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.
3. Re:What's up! by msauve · 2012-12-01 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When asked "did (the collective) you know about x?", and you did know, it may be easy to answer quickly - you only need identify one individual or document with that knowledge. To answer that you didn't know requires that all parties who could have known be asked, along with checking all relevant records. It's much harder to prove a negative, as they say.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:What's up! by Karzz1 · 2012-12-01 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I suggest you read up on this a bit. I agree that the Seagate/Samsung tie seems to be a bit tenuous until you look at what this man did to get on the jury. He wanted to be there and that, my friend, demonstrates bias.
  
  Upon further research, it appears that he also ignored the judge's specific instructions, presumably because as a (former?) patent holder, he knew more about patent law than the judge does.
  
  If this was a fishing expedition, it was a good day out fishing.
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
5. Re:What's up! by akboss · 2012-12-01 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So in your opinion the Jury Foreman was right to with hold the fact that he was involved in other lawsuits, including one against Samsung where he LOST the verdict. It is ok in your world when the Judge asks you to disclose ALL litigation to with hold the one important one against the defendant.
  
  --
  "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
6. Re:What's up! by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  you are forgetting that the only reason samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of samsung before he spoke up.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
7. Re:What's up! by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  you are forgetting that the only reason Samsung lost was because of this foreman. Even the foreman stated that the rest of the jury was in favor of Samsung before he spoke up.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
8. Re:What's up! by Karzz1 · 2012-12-01 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except that Apple never should have won in the first place and almost certainly will lose on appeal. If the jury had not been tainted by a jury foreman with an agenda, Apple would never have won -- and before you dispute this, please do some research. This man is on record incriminating himself.
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
9. Re:What's up! by Duncan+Booth · 2012-12-01 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because one of Apple's objections to Samsung's motion to have the verdict overturned is that the information was readily available so Samsung should have known during the trial and therefore they've missed their opportunity to object. If Apple didn't know during the trial it undermines their argument (whereas if they had known and not brought it up it would have been even worse for them).
10. Re:What's up! by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Even a bad day fishing beats a good day at work.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
11. Re:What's up! by whoever57 · 2012-12-01 06:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Then you'll be happy to know that Seagate bought Samsungs hard drive division in 2011, not the other way around, so I don't see how he could be biased AGAINST Samsung when Samsung lost their hard drive division to Seagate.
  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.
  
  Also isn't it the job of Samsungs lawyers to ask the jury members questions during jury selection to make sure they're not biased?
  
  2. The judge asked the questions. Not the lawyers.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
12. Re:What's up! by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-01 06:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't know, it is hard to see how a trial taking place down the road from Apple's headquarters against a Korean company could be all that fair when the jury clearly have a vested in interest in protecting their local economy and the US economy in general. At the very least the retrial/appeal should be moved to a more neutral location.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 06:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  /looks at noh8rz8's post history.
  /Looks at latest post of his/hers:
  
  worst case, this judgment is thrown out and there's another trial where apple wins even more money. sammy should stop while they're not too far behind!
  You wish, Apple Fanboy/Fangirl!
14. Re:What's up! by erroneus · 2012-12-01 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It was no fishing expedition. It was the foreman's own ego that is doing him and his trial in. No question he has a mission and intent in all of this. He stated as much in his many interviews. Things he said like "wanting to send a message" demonstrates he wanted to be judge, jury and executioner.
  As far as knowing more about patent law? Either this guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows about the applicability of patents (he said something didn't infringe because of the processor it ran on was different? Really? By that standard, nothing infringes on Apple devices because Apple uses "special processors.") or he blew ample amounts of false information out to the rest of the jury to get the results he wanted. Either way, it's misbehavior on the part of this jurist. This is definitely one for the books and if this guy doesn't get some sort of action taken against him, it will be a little surprising. (Though I can see the argument for letting him slide on this... we don't want to discourage jurists from participating or we will NEVER have juries if they have risk of being prosecuted themselves... they will have to be careful about that.)
  Apple's cases are becoming crap. The more data that comes out, the easier it becomes to win against Apple. And the more people win against Apple, the harder it will be for Apple to squeeze settlements out of people. I think we're already seeing an end of this debacle of Apple going thermonuclear. If Jobs were alive, I think he would have halted all of this long before it tarnished Apple's image as it has. Apple just looks like a spoiled rich kid now.
15. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because as part of the deal Samsung now owns a LARGE number of shares in Seagate. So in effect Samsung does (partially) own Seagate.
16. Re:What's up! by Xtifr · 2012-12-01 09:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Also isn't it the job of Samsungs lawyers to ask the jury members questions during jury selection to make sure they're not biased? Samsung should be suing their lawyers for missing this, it's not apple's fault.
  That's not the issue here. The issue is that Apple has claimed that Samsung should have known about the foreman's connection, and must have been hiding the information deliberately in case they needed to appeal. So Samsung asked, "well, did you know?" If Apple answered in the affirmative, then they open themselves up to the same complaint they made about Samsung. If they answer in the negative, then their claim about Samsung becomes nothing but sheer unfounded speculation. Apple had no winning card to play here, so they chose the least harmful one.
17. Re:What's up! by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-12-01 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  If they answer in the negative, then their claim about Samsung becomes nothing but sheer unfounded speculation.
  I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. I might reasonably allege that you should have recognized your ex wife. My failure to realize that you've had previous dealings with her doesn't let you off the hook.
  Note that in no way am I defending the travesty of the ruling. It's utterly ridiculous. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that a major corporation's legal department would have a list somewhere of people they've sued (or been sued by), and might want to consult that list before starting new legal proceedings.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
18. Re:What's up! by DeadCatX2 · 2012-12-01 13:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not in this case. See this transcript from groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf
  
  THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence.
  Let's continue with the questions.
  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?
  Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question?
  All right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan.
  I'm pretty sure "THE COURT" means the Judge. And I left the "Mr. Hogan" in there too, so there was no doubt.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
19. Re:What's up! by josepha48 · 2012-12-01 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how much trouble he can get into. Usually during jury selection they ask have you had any bias to and then list out companies and their parent companies and affiliate companies. They are usually pretty thorough in listing companies.
  
  --
  Only 'flamers' flame!
20. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 14:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because most people on juries are blessedly free from the ravages of intelligence. I was on a personal injury jury once and could have convinced the jury to go either way, all in or nothing. It was frankly an awful feeling, especially since neither attorney asked the plaintiff the one crucial question, did you or did you not pull bales from the bottom of the stack?
21. Re:What's up! by Xtifr · 2012-12-01 16:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Well, gosh, that would be true if it weren't simply false! Samsung most definitely has said they didn't know until after the trial. In the reply that lead to this decision: "The court held only that claims of misconduct 'must be supported by proof that the evidence of misconduct was not discovered until after the verdict was returned,' which is precisely what Samsung has shown here." (Emphasis mine.)
22. Re:What's up! by Xtifr · 2012-12-01 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  I oversimplified. Apple actually claimed it was Samsung's duty to know.
  As for a list, I suspect you underestimate the number of people who have been engaged in adversarial legal proceedings with your average corporation. Especially since many of them may have been part of a group or another company, rather than represented as individuals. And maintaining and checking such a list (especially since more than one person can have the same name) is probably prohibitively expensive.
  In any case, the court agreed with Samsung, which implies that your suggestion, however logical it may seem, is not standard practice.
23. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 19:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem with that theory is Samsung actually makes products in the US while Apple outsources all of their product assembly. so Samsung really is doing more to stimulate the US economy than Apple is.
24. Re:What's up! by sl4shd0rk · 2012-12-02 00:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So first they had to figure out what evidence there was.
  Nope. The jurors were all given opportunity to disclose any previous legal wranglings. Hogan chose to omit the Seagate one.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
25. Re:What's up! by Uhyve · 2012-12-02 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  They're on AT&T...
26. Re:What's up! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-02 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  "the jury clearly have a vested in interest in protecting their local economy and the US economy in general"
  True perhaps, but this jury, even though they have this interest, obviously had no idea how to implement it (Hence the short-sighted anti-competitive verdict which will end up causing more problems for their local economy in the future)
1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by stevez67 · 2012-12-01 03:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Talk about grasping at straws. Oh wait ... no ... just ambulance chasers keeping the $$'s flowing. In other news everyone on the Jury has bought either a Samsung or Apple product or product containing a Samsung part at some point in their life and obviously tainted the jury.
1. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by philip.paradis · 2012-12-01 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Film at 11, courtesy of components manufactured in part by Samsung.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
2. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by BlackTriangle · 2012-12-01 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A big company might not care, but a personal human being can hold a grudge forever. I know I would. This foreman tried to slip one by and now has been caught by the pure luck of the story of two star-crossed lawyers.
3. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by hey! · 2012-12-01 03:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by mysidia · 2012-12-01 04:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He was involved a lawsuit with Seagate, which is not Samsung.
  Every juror who purchased an Apple product but no Samsung phone could be said to be biased in favor of Apple (they chose the Apple product over a Samsung product, after all).
  Every juror who purchased a Samsung product, but not an Apple smartphone could be said to be biased in favor of Samsung.
  You want jurors who own devices from both, or who own devices from neither, eg.. Blackberry / Windows 7 Phone / Palm owners.
5. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by sribe · 2012-12-01 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  True, but he's not a former employee of Samsung ;-)
6. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's one thing saying that you own something containing a Samsung part (Technically owning an iPhone qualifies), it's quite another being BANKRUPT by a company that Samsung is significantly invested in. You don't easily forget about such things.
  WTF?? Seagate acquired Samsung's HDD business in Dec. 2011. So the foreman has an axe go grind with Samsung now? The case was 20 years ago... 1993... was Samsung invested in Seagate in 1993? I can't see the connection, nor can I see how it is a failure of the foreman to disclose if he wasn't asked about it. I have a prediction: Samsung is going to fail to have the verdict set asside, the case overturned or even be granted an appeal based on this ridiculous notion that because the foreman was sued by Seagate in 1993, and Samsung sold off its HDD business to Seagate in 2011 that therefore the foreman was biased against Samsung. If it was somehow the other way around, that Seagate had sold some business division to Samsung, such that former employees of Seagate were now Samsung employees... then the accusation might make a slight bit of sense... but not really.
7. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  True, he isn't a former Samsung employee, but an ex-employee of someone Samsung is invested in.
  None of which matters terribly much, since the real issue is not disclosing a lawsuit he was a party in, when he was instructed to do so.
8. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by rogueippacket · 2012-12-01 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My understanding of the U.S. Legal System may not be up to snuff, but doesn't handpicking a jury (based upon their personal tastes) defeat the entire purpose? It would be like asking all of your selected jurors whether they or someone they love has been involved in a violent crime, and only admitting those who have into a case where the defendant is on trial for murder. At that point, it won't matter if it's Mr. Rogers on trial - every single person in the jury is now extremely emotionally invested, instead of neutral and supposedly rational. Selecting a random group ensures that there may only be one or two people with such an investment, and the odds of them swaying an entire jury are quite low if the facts presenting are overwhelming.
9. Re: 1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by paimin · 2012-12-01 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, it didn't stop this bullshit flamebait article submission from outright stating in the headline that the foreman preciously "tangled" with Samsung. Slashdot has literally become Idiocracy.
  
  --
  Facebook is the new AOL
10. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by akboss · 2012-12-01 05:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  A big company might not care, but a personal human being can hold a grudge forever. I know I would. This foreman tried to slip one by and now has been caught by the pure luck of the story of two star-crossed lawyers.
  Not to mention his going to the media afterwards and talking about how he screwed the verdict.
  
  --
  "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
11. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Rockoon · 2012-12-01 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  and the odds of them swaying an entire jury are quite low if the facts presenting are overwhelming.
  You missed the opposite side of the coin. Those same individuals are also unlikely to be swayed even by overwhelming facts.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
12. Re: 1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by catmistake · 2012-12-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it didn't stop this bullshit flamebait article submission from outright stating in the headline that the foreman preciously "tangled" with Samsung. Slashdot has literally become Idiocracy.
  No, it's business as usual. Slashdot has always been filled with intelligent but intellectually dishonest commenters.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
13. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Karzz1 · 2012-12-01 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
14. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Karzz1 · 2012-12-01 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, you are not so much selecting jurors during the process as you are removing potential jurors from the pool (because you can demonstrate some reason they would not be impartial). I believe both sides of the case also have a limited number of uncontested juror eliminations (from the jury).
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
15. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by mysidia · 2012-12-01 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  Seagate bought out Samsung's HDD division. Due to the history that he had with Seagate and having to file bankruptcy, I'm sure he still harbours some ill will to anyone who had dealings with Seagate.
  If he was ever an employee of Apple, Samsung, or a Competitor, then yeah, he should be excluded from the jury, due to the possibility of personal interest in the outcome -- or past employer interest in the outcome (possibilities of being influenced by previous employers, or harboring a disposition towards a previous employer).
  However, Seagate's "hard drive division" is not Seagate. Buying out their business unit, shutting it down, and transferring the business to a Samsung business unit, doesn't make Samsung seagate.
16. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now you're committing a grave mistake. You're trying to bring reason into something that is basically isn't about reason at all.
  If this Vermin Hogan had been a man of reason, he would have realized that whatever he lost long a ago is gone, and creating a mess for anyone in anyway related to Seagate won't make that undone. It will only create trouble for himself starting by having to do jury duty and possibly ending by being in receiving end of criminal prosecution as well as a retaliatory lawsuit from a very angry, multi-billion company with extremely expensive lawyers who can make him live in a cardboard box for the rest of his life, and the resources to follow him to the end of the earth if it's what it takes.
  However, he has thrown all that out the window in the name of getting even. Reason have no place in this.
17. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Volastic · 2012-12-01 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My understanding of the U.S. Legal System may not be up to snuff, but doesn't handpicking a jury (based upon their personal tastes) defeat the entire purpose? It would be like asking all of your selected jurors whether they or someone they love has been involved in a violent crime, and only admitting those who have into a case where the defendant is on trial for murder.
  I've been involved in two jury trials and one Jury "picking"
  at each one the very first questions asked (for weeding
  purposes) were if anyone had ever filed for bankruptcy, or been
  involved in any previous lawsuits. There might be exceptions
  but those people were excused when I was in attendance.
  I was once asked if I thought if a police man would lie, as it
  was pertinent to the case, "Hell ya!" and I was off that jury, but
  anybody who said no I felt had a warped sense of reality.
18. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by mysidia · 2012-12-01 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  Well, if true... overt lying on the record under oath during jury selection, should be prosecuted as perjury. He should go to jail for that.
  The case needs to be retried, and the juror should be responsible for any legal costs this may incur.
19. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by rtfa-troll · 2012-12-01 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  However, Seagate's "hard drive division" is not Seagate. Buying out their business unit, shutting it down, and transferring the business to a Samsung business unit, doesn't make Samsung seagate.
  How are your feelings about this relevant to the discussion? What matters is the man's feelings - maybe he ascribed blame to Samsung however logical or illogical. What also matters are Samsung's feelings - did they feel they would be fairly judged. Finally what matters is the mans honesty.
  The man lied. He got on the jury in a situation where normally he would have been barred. He then, according to his own admission, broke the law in order to damage Samsung. Those are the facts. The only question is whether Apple knew about his dishonesty and so was complicit. It seems that they did not. This shows that their claim that Samsung should have known was unreasonable.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
20. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by zr · 2012-12-01 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  He should go to jail for that.
  he very well may.
21. Re: 1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by 517714 · 2012-12-01 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine how short the discussions on Anthropogenic Global Warming would be without "intelligent but intellectually dishonest commenters"? Granted, there'd still be the first post whores, the seriously off-topic racist and misogynistic comments, and a few clueless individuals discussing the heat output of their Rand McNally lighted globes.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
22. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by 517714 · 2012-12-01 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  No. No, you don't. When corporations can sit on a jury all will be lost.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
23. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by DeadCatX2 · 2012-12-01 13:44 · Score: 2
  
  A lie of omission is still a lie. The Judge asked him if he, his family, or anyone very close to him has ever been involved in a lawsuit. When you swear to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", you don't get to say just one example when there were multiple.
  Let's say you've been in the hospital three times, once for your appendix, once for your tonsils, and once for a concussion. The doctor asks you "have you ever been in the hospital before?" Are you seriously going to just say "yeah, had my tonsils taken out", or are you going to give your doctor the whole truth?
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
24. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Karzz1 · 2012-12-01 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  He was asked if he had *ever* been involved in a lawsuit, and if so to expand on that. He is making erroneous claims that the question only pertained to the preceding 10 years now that he has been called out on that, despite all court transcripts never mentioning a 10 year limit.
  
  Google and Groklaw are your friends.
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
25. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Time_Ngler · 2012-12-01 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at your groklaw link, I don't see anyone asking to expand on the lawsuits. That was information he offered that was unrequested. Furthermore, as soon as he does, the judge moves on to other topics and other jurors. When during the transcript on the groklaw link do you think he should have brought it up?
26. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Seagate bought Samsung's HDD division with a stock transfer that made Samsung the single largest shareholder in Seagate. This makes Seagate a part of Samsung.
27. Re:1993? Seagate? Samsung? Srsly? by PCM2 · 2012-12-01 17:54 · Score: 2
  
  The points you make are true, and he has also admitted in interviews that he, himself, holds patents -- technology patents which could potentially be licensed by Apple, among others (we just don't know) -- and that he used his past experiences with patents to instruct the other jurors about patent law.
  He has explained exactly what points he convinced the other jurors of (I don't have a direct link here) and attorneys who have been asked about his arguments have said that he was totally off-base and that he does not have a good understanding of patent law.
  Moreover, the court never recognized Hogan as any kind of "expert" (legally speaking) on patent law, so while he is certainly entitled to argue whatever he wants during jury deliberations, he should not have presented himself as an expert and the other jurors should have received any explanations of patent law they needed from the judge, not from Hogan.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
Blogspam by mrsam · 2012-12-01 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

This submission spams a boring blog, with a link to the real article.
Apple's Legal Team by c0d3g33k · 2012-12-01 03:46 · Score: 1, Funny

Either incompetent or lying, it would seem.
1. Re:Apple's Legal Team by SJHillman · 2012-12-01 03:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Apple's team is very skilled, so you can replace the 'or' with an 'and'
2. Re:Apple's Legal Team by MikeMo · 2012-12-01 03:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?
3. Re:Apple's Legal Team by neokushan · 2012-12-01 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get.
  They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this.
  Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
  I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
4. Re:Apple's Legal Team by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?
  They probably did, but it was a strategic move - they were gathering arguments for a possible appeal in case of a bad verdict. When lawyers discover a serious flaw or misconduct in the trial, they don't report it (or protest against it) at first. They use it later for appeals.
5. Re:Apple's Legal Team by Theaetetus · 2012-12-01 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get. They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this. Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
  ... except that Samsung, being in such a close relationship to Seagate, had access to Seagate's records and would have been easier able to find the conflict. I mean, you probably have no idea if I've ever been sued and by whom, but if someone sued your spouse, you'd probably know about it. If you and I got into a lawsuit and that person was on the jury, you'd probably notice them long before I ever would, just as I'd probably notice the other jury person who sued me long before you would.
  The question this raises is not whether Apple knew, but whether Samsung knew about Hogan and sat on that information to use in case of a bad jury verdict.
6. Re:Apple's Legal Team by sa666_666 · 2012-12-01 05:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
  So in other words, the definition of a lawyer.
7. Re:Apple's Legal Team by neokushan · 2012-12-01 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that.
  However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
8. Re:Apple's Legal Team by Theaetetus · 2012-12-01 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that. However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
  Except that you're being contradictory... On the one hand, you're saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous and records from that far back are irrelevant, if not lost, and on the other hand, you're saying that the business relationship is so intricate and involved that anyone with a problem with Seagate must be biased against Samsung.
  Did Hogan know that Samsung bought Seagate? That's a huge assumption you're making.
9. Re:Apple's Legal Team by neokushan · 2012-12-01 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records.
  What I'm then saying is that the records date back 20 years. Just how far back should someone look within a company for this sort of thing? What's more, just how far back should one look into other companies that weren't even part of Samsung at the time? Samsung has some big investments into Seagate but aside from Hogan Seagate has nothing to do with this court case, so why would people look into litigation into Seagate from 20 years ago? I think saying that Samsung should have checked this stuff is asking a bit much.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
10. Re:Apple's Legal Team by Hognoxious · 2012-12-01 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  you aren't going to lose a fight just to have an opportunity to fight again.
  Of course you are. The second time you have the fact that they only won the first time round by cheating to use against them. You've introduced a bias against them that wouldn't be there if you'd cried "foul" early in the first trial.
  It's only the last verdict that counts.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
11. Re:Apple's Legal Team by Theaetetus · 2012-12-01 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records. If Hogan had been a jury member in a suit, or an expert, or talkie, I could see the reference being in he law firm's records rather than Seagate's, but a past plaintiff against them?
  More to the point, I'm saying it's more likely that Samsung had knowledge of Hogan (although they may have lost the records/not looked) than that Apple knew about him.
12. Re:Apple's Legal Team by neokushan · 2012-12-01 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
  Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious thing but really it's ancient history.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
13. Re:Apple's Legal Team by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-12-01 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, I'm not sure about that. I assume these lawyers are Samsung employees.
14. Re:Apple's Legal Team by shentino · 2012-12-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  All this wrangling by apple is an attempt to take advantage of the jury's misconduct.
  Whether or not the foreman could have been caught shouldn't even be relevant.
  If the verdict was tainted, it should be thrown out period.
15. Re:Apple's Legal Team by TheEyes · 2012-12-01 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't make sense... For a variety of good reasons (cost, risk, others), you aren't going to lose a fight just to have an opportunity to fight again. Unless you're proposing it's a strategic move exclusively from Samsung's lawyers' perspective.
  The lawyers get paid by the hour, having the opportunity to fight again is the win.
  Doesn't matter if they are or aren't. If they are in-house, they want this case to be over so they can go out and sue other people. If they are outside, they want to keep a decent won/loss record, so other people will hire them to pursue their cases. The US doesn't have such a deficit of lawyers that it can't afford to jetison a few who don't preform.
Jury wasn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.
It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness, because the patent office has gotten so far away from reality that it gives patents for existing stuff simply by adding "on a handset".
So you may have wished the jury was just normal people, who would see the stupidness of it, and reject the claim regardless of the patent, but instead you got a person who FOLLOWED THE PATENT LAW, the insane stupid, nonsensical law, and promptly issued a $1 billion penalty that was appropriate, if we all lived in a lunatic asylum where this patent regime makes sense.
IMHO, the fix for this decision is for Korea to issue a patent infringement case against Apple for $2 billion, and make it clear to everyone that this is just protectionism disguised as an 'innovative' curved corner design, and a camera icon that looks like a camera.
1. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by arbiter1 · 2012-12-01 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Dragonslicer · 2012-12-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?
  If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.
  
  There is no infringement if the patent isn't valid.
  Patent trials are a bit counterintuitive on this one. Infringement and validity are decided separately, so a jury could find that Samsung infringed the patent, but that the patent isn't valid. This might seem pointless, but if the invalidity finding is overturned on appeal, the infringement finding may still be upheld.
3. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Dogbertius · 2012-12-01 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I usually avoid posts with several ALL CAPS sentences (so I must ignore my own post after committing in :) ), but you make a good point. I've personally gone through hundreds of patents for my own entrepreneurial work, and can't believe the sheer number of patents that are "XYZ, which has been around for 20+ years, but now on a phone/mobile_device/tablet".
  
  I was actually surprised Nokia won that patent suit against RIM. Wifi on a mobile device? The first thing I said to myself when Wifi came out was "Man, imagine this on a phone. Cheap calls and zero data plan overcharges". That was, of course, until telcos and ISPs decided that rather than innovate or improve infrastructure, they would just litigate against tech that benefits the customer (ie: anti net neutrality, fees for tethering your phone even though it costs the carrier nothing, likewise with SMS messages, which have been around for 20 years apparently, potentially forcing a voice plan on you if you are just using a data plan with Skype).
  
  Regardless of how this affects my business personally, it seems the absurdity with patents and monopolistic practices amongst ISPs (whose money was used to lay the cable in the first place anyway?), there is a constant war on the consumer. I really wish the layperson (ie: 75%+ of voting individuals) would at least realize this so we could effect change. No wonder critical thinking isn't taught until university (if at all) and one can go through his or her whole life without a single course on formal logic, fallacies, and statistics.
4. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by cheesybagel · 2012-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  They could have. But the jury foreman told them they didn't have the authority to do it. Hah.
5. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Rockoon · 2012-12-01 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  If there was sufficient evidence presented to them, yes, they could have found the patent invalid.
  Sufficient prior art evidence was presented to them. The foreman in question convinced the rest of the people, acting as an "expert", that prior art did not invalidate patents. Jury members other than this foreman have stated that this is exactly what happened.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
6. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Fanboys_Suck_Dick · 2012-12-01 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's possible that the jury instructions regarding prior art were misinterpreted but you are wrong about what was said in the post interviews. In the post interviews the foreman said that the jury was having trouble reaching consensus on one patent relating to prior art and decided to move on to deliberate easier patents. When they were done with those easier patents they returned to the difficult issue that they skipped earlier. This is standard behavior in jury deliberations and not against the jury instructions. The false belief that they completely skipped it is commonly posted here and probably stems from a series of erroneous and biased Groklaw articles that were posted on Slashdot in August.
7. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Dragonslicer · 2012-12-01 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I was only speaking in general. I haven't read everything about this specific case, so I can't say whether or not I think this jury should have found any of these patents invalid. I've seen people here on Slashdot say various things about what happened with this jury, and I know enough about Slashdot, especially when it comes to patent law, not to assume any of it is true.
8. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Theaetetus · 2012-12-01 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Look, the problem here isn't the jury, or the decision. Samsung did infringe that patent.
  It's the BLOODY STUPID PATENT THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED. A patent that fails basic common sense tests of invention, prior art and obviousness
  There aren't any "basic common sense tests" of invention, prior art, and obviousness, just as there isn't a "basic common sense test" for whether an accused murderer is guilty. They're legal decisions, subject to the requirements of due process, and must be supported by evidence. Just as you can't say, "I have a gut feeling that he looks guilty, so let's send him away for life," you can't say "I have a gut feeling that this patent is obvious, so let's make it invalid." You need sufficient evidence that proves guilt (such as DNA evidence, witness accounts, etc.) or that proves obviousness (such as one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, teach or suggest everything in the patent).
  And incidentally, "prior art" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prior art" is anything in the art (industry) that is prior. So, for example, the Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for Google Glass. The term you're thinking of is "anticipatory prior art" - where one piece of prior art discloses, explicitly or inherently, everything in the patent claim. So, if a patent shows A+B+C+D+E, you show that the patent is invalid because it is anticipated by finding one piece of prior art that shows A+B+C+D+E. You show that the patent is invalid because it obvious by finding one piece of art that shows A+B and another that shows C+E and another that shows D.
  Note: this is a description of the law as it currently exists, not as you might wish it to be, so don't get upset with me because I'm telling you that showing obviousness requires evidence
9. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Actually there was prior art, that the foreman talked the rest into ignoring because he was a supposed expert. That shows a problem with a jury.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
10. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
11. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by itsdapead · 2012-12-01 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't the jury rule that the patent is invalid then?
  Only if one of the warring parties presents them with enough evidence to do so.
  When both parties are huge patent-holders, don't expert them to do more than nit-pick the specifics of the opposition's patents. Presenting more general arguments about the absurdities of the patent system might backfire undermine the value of their own portfolio...
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
12. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Solandri · 2012-12-01 09:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They never saw the most damning piece of prior art - Samsung's internal documents showing their iPhone-like prototypes in the design phase before anyone outside of Apple had ever laid eyes on the iPhone. That was the evidence Judge Koh disallowed from the trial because Samsung missed a filing deadline.
  
  I said at the time that this was a huge judicial error. That she was ignoring the spirit of the law to follow the letter of the law. The reason for having filing deadlines is to prevent one side from dragging out a trial for so long that the cost of the trial exceeds any award amount, thus making justice uneconomical. But in this case the potential outcome was worth billions of dollars, while a few days extension would've cost at most a few tens of thousands. So clearly the spirit of the law would not have been violated by allowing the evidence, with perhaps a stern reprimand to Samsung's lawyers for missing the deadline. But she disallowed it, and now we're most likely gonna have to waste millions of dollars on a new trial because of her decision.
13. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by gutnor · 2012-12-01 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  We seem to always know an awful lot nowadays. Secret meeting, secret negotiation. Yet there seem to be always plenty of people ready to say something. Maybe I am cynical, but I guess there too much incentive to have something "interesting" to say nowadays.
  Let see it the other way. Neither Samsung, nor Apple has anything to benefit from any of this, much the contrary - winning, losing, their strategy was probably set for the next 10 years. But then out of nowhere, here comes a nicely packed little story for one of the biggest case of the year. I feel a book with "revelation" coming soon.
14. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-12-01 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  It shows a problem with *this* jury.
  The problem is not with juries in general, but rather that the jury foreman in *this* case disregarded the court's instructions, presumed authority which he did not legally have, and then bragged about it in public afterwards.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
15. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by Shagg · 2012-12-03 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  They could have, and should have. They didn't because the jury foreman, who had an agenda, conned them in to ignoring the evidence.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
16. Re:Jury wasn't the problem by ranmagirl · 2012-12-03 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  potentially forcing a voice plan on you if you are just using a data plan with Skype
  Just wondering, could this be circumvented by buying a 3G USB "thumb modem" (not sure what they are called, in Finland we use word "nettitikku" which translates to "net stick") which comes with a data plan and using the sim card from it in a mobile phone?
  
  --
  ranma - girl?
headline is really misleading by sribe · 2012-12-01 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The jury foreman did not have a previous tangle with Samsug. He had a previous tangle with Seagate. Seagate is not a subsidiary of Samsung. Samsung has invested in Seagate to the extent of a 10% share.
It seems a stretch to claim that the foreman's anger at Seagate from 20 years ago must necessarily extend to all current investors in Seagate.
1. Re:headline is really misleading by medv4380 · 2012-12-01 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People have held grudges for far less. However, his deliberate miss interpretation of the jury instructions is almost certainly rooted in his past legal battles.
2. Re:headline is really misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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).
3. Re:headline is really misleading by cheesybagel · 2012-12-01 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  There is more about it than this. The lawsuit representing Seagate in that case (which caused him to go bankrupt and lose his house IIRC) is related to a lawyer in the Samsung case's side.
4. Re:headline is really misleading by phantomfive · 2012-12-01 05:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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."
5. Re:headline is really misleading by phantomfive · 2012-12-01 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if we threw out every jury case because the jury had 'wrong reasons' for their decision, then we would probably throw out every jury case.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:headline is really misleading by phantomfive · 2012-12-01 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  As a matter of fact, juries CAN find an innocent person guilty because they don't like them. Juries are arbiters of law and facts.
  
  Now, in modern practice, the judge can overturn a jury decision in favor of the defense, but the judge doesn't have to.
  
  It might be a miscarriage of justice, but it's legal. Thomas Jefferson justified it by saying essentially, "yes it's a problem, but better to give that power to juries, because if we give it to judges, it will be much worse."
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re:headline is really misleading by phantomfive · 2012-12-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  how about if one of the jury members tries to sway the other jury members based on the one person's feelings and thoughts.
  Do you understand that this happens in nearly every jury trial?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:headline is really misleading by gutnor · 2012-12-01 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Alleged miss interpretation. As I said in another post, there is conveniently a lot of stories around this jury. Remember that only the jury members were there but there a thousands of journalists ready to pay for an exiting story.
  OK it could have happened the way the "press" says it has. But really, the guy hold that kind of a grudge for 20+ years, but then blew it up in the press ? And what kind of revenge is that ? That's a movie or book revenge, not a real life one. Victories in first instance is only good as a movie ending, everybody knows that winning or losing, there will be an appeal. Also, temporarily shifting slightly the balance of power between 2 giants seems like little return on investment.
  All this is is another episode in the media circus that is the legal battle between Samsung and Apple. I guess the jury member are just trying to get their slice of the media pie. The fat check for the book right is going to be the real jury foreman revenge.
9. Re:headline is really misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Alleged? Lots of stories? Have you listened to him talk? He's admitted to not following the law. He should have gone to the judge for more instructions, not pretended he knew the law, when anyone who knows it can tell he's wrong about prior art. No reason to blame the press. Decide for yourself.
10. Re:headline is really misleading by DeadCatX2 · 2012-12-01 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  You think it's a stretch?
  The man was bankrupted. His house was put into foreclosure. If a company did that to you, do you think you'd just forgive them after 20 years?
  If some company bankrupted me and put my house into foreclosure, I would hold a grudge for the rest of my life, and I would take it out on any company even tangentially related to them.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
11. Re:headline is really misleading by shentino · 2012-12-01 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it should be.
  Meanwhile, you'd also get arrested and charged with intimidating a juror, which in my state is a class B felony and will get you at least 5 years in prison.
  In fact, SCOTUS once ruled that if misconduct goes far enough, it can even nullify double jeopardy, if you cheated the system so blatantly that you were never in jeopardy to begin with.
12. Re:headline is really misleading by sribe · 2012-12-01 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  If a company did that to you, do you think you'd just forgive them after 20 years?
  No, I certainly would not forgive that.
  
  ...and I would take it out on any company even tangentially related to them.
  No, I wouldn't be that irrational, looking to punish anyone who for whatever reason happened to invest in, be a customer of, or partner with them. That's ridiculous. (Yes, some people might, but really, most, even though still carrying animosity toward Seagate, would not 20 years later be tracking every single business partner and looking to hurt them all).
  It's possible that he has stayed completely obsessed with Seagate this whole time, but I think it's more likely that he didn't even know that Samsung had invested in a 10% interest in Seagate and sold their HDD business to Seagate. Think about it: hurting Samsung does not do a damn thing to Seagate--in fact, the notion is backwards; hurting Seagate would hurt Samsung in a minor way.
13. Re:headline is really misleading by Rogerborg · 2012-12-01 22:49 · Score: 2
  
  Give it up, eh? These "stories" are coming from Hogan himself. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Actually, it could be both.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
THE REAL FUCKING LINK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative

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
Jeez, timothy by xigxag · 2012-12-01 04:11 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:13 · Score: 1

was involved in a lawsuit with his former employer, Seagate Technology Inc.
So what? 20 years ago Seagate sued this guy... how is this even remotely relevant to Samsung?
1. Re:HELP ME UNDERSTAND by guruevi · 2012-12-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently Samsung owns shares of Seagate...
  This whole case doesn't make much sense. Throw out the patents and start over.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2. Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Since Samsung partially owns Seagate how is it not relevant?
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
3. Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Since Samsung partially owns Seagate how is it not relevant?
  Because that's now, or since Dec 2011. If the acquisition happened in Dec. 1992, it might be relevant... but probably not. What would make this relevant is if in Dec. 1992 Samsung acquired Seagate, but not if in 2011 Seagate acquired part of Samsung. You see... even assuming that the foreman had a grudge against Seagate for 20 years, hurting Samsung has zero effect on Seagate. If Samsung shut its doors on Monday due to this verdict, Seagate would not have any valid business reason to care because they already got what they needed from Samsung... Samsung's HDD business would live on happily within Seagate.
4. Re: HELP ME UNDERSTAND by erroneus · 2012-12-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about Apple hate. It's about a guy who hated Seagate, and by extension, Samsung who found himself invited to being on a jury where Samsung was being sued over an issue very close to his heart.
  If this guy were a judge in this case, he would have had to recuse himself. In fact, he was asked about information to determine if he should be on the jury at all and he omitted information which unquestionably would have prevented him from being on the jury, let alone foreman. Given the extremely troubled past he had with Seagate and the legal battles, it is not reasonable to assume it just slipped his mind. And his various interviews where he stated he wanted to "send a message" indicates his vigilante nature.
  This isn't about Apple hate. If it was Samsung vs Google, the real situational issue would be the same.
HE DIDN'T TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH by jjo · 2012-12-01 04:44 · Score: 2

This is relevant because it has a potential for bias, and also because this guy did not tell the whole truth in pre-trial questioning, raising the possibility that he was trying to get on the jury to vindicate his legal philosophy on patents. If Samsung had known about the Seagate matter, they could have objected to his being seated on the jury.
Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 04:51 · Score: 1

Just have a new trial, fine the foreman the cost of the original trial that he deliberately and maliciously tainted, and be done with it.
1. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Just have a new trial, fine the foreman the cost of the original trial that he deliberately and maliciously tainted, and be done with it.
  I like it! And when it's done, tell him "See, you only THOUGHT Seagate fucked you in the worst way possible. It was YOU, dear boy, who has fucked himself in the worst possible way ... and ... have a nice day!"
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by Zak3056 · 2012-12-01 04:59 · Score: 1

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?
The issue is that Apple says that a mistrial is inappropriate, because Samsung "should have known" about this. Hence Samsung's response, "Well, when did YOU know about this?"
It's win-win for Samsung, I think--if Apple knew about it, then they're shown to (possibly) have unclean hands. If Apple did NOT know about it, then it's absurd for them suggest that Samsung should have.

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
samsung hd business -- seagate by gl4ss · 2012-12-01 05:10 · Score: 1

http://drive.seagate.com/content/samsung-en-us
as far as hd businesses go, they're effectively the same company in strategic partnership. for someone with a grudge it would certainly be enough.
the guy's a dimwit though, bragging about. no ethics - or style - at all.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:35 · Score: 1

So if you sue a company that is owned partially by another company, does that mean that it has nothing to do with the owning company? Yea, I CANT see that logic.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Revenge is a dish best served cold by thaylin · 2012-12-01 05:36 · Score: 1

Revenge never makes sense.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Revenge is a dish best served cold by catmistake · 2012-12-01 05:46 · Score: 1

Wow... kudos to the foreman... waiting in the tall grass for 20 years for some sweet payback... that billion dollar verdict against Samsung will make Seagate think twice before suing him into bankruptcy ever again. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Seagate... they must be shitting their pants, thinking "how did we let this guy fuck us over so hard?" /sarcasm
This makes no sense.
No... it does. The foreman is a twisted, evil person. You see... Seagate isn't without feelings, you know. If they care about people, they'll never do business with any other company again because they now know this foreman might be instrumental in leveraging a billion dollar verdict against anyone who does business with Seagate. This will drive Seagate to despair.
I am concerned. The only harddrives I've ever purchased are Seagate products. I love their multi-year product warranties, and most of my drives are still covered by Seagate's unmatched five year warranties. How can I protect myself against this relentless unforgiving agent of evil that is ruthlessly and systematically taking out anyone with which Seagate does business? Not sure or not if it's related, but someone has poisoned my dog. I'm taking my family on a vacation just to be safe... just until this blows over... I hear Cape Fear is nice this time of year.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by itsdapead · 2012-12-01 05:57 · Score: 2

>

If Apple did NOT know about it, then it's absurd for them suggest that Samsung should have.
If it turns out that Apple knew that the juror had a possible grudge against Samsung and said nothing then they might be in trouble - but it wasn't Apple's responsibility to go out and hunt for reasons why the jurors might have a grudge against Samsung. That was Samsung's job, and they should be in a better position than Apple to know who they and their partners have sued over the years...
If the connection between Samsung and this guy is so tenuous that he wasn't in their Little Black Book then its harder to suggest that he'd be biassed against them.
Meanwhile, remember that the jury also threw out some pretty silly patent claims by Samsung. There are no "good guys" in this case, so if you fancy a retrial, be careful what you wish for.

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by Zak3056 · 2012-12-01 06:38 · Score: 1

If the connection between Samsung and this guy is so tenuous that he wasn't in their Little Black Book then its harder to suggest that he'd be biassed against them.
I don't believe that is the point--the issue is that he lied (by omission) during jury questioning. His motives for doing so are less clear, and the Seagate connection has been suggested as a possibility. Regardless, it appears that the jury foreman (based on his own statements to the press) acted, at best, improperly... and that opens up the question, "was this a fair trial?"

Meanwhile, remember that the jury also threw out some pretty silly patent claims by Samsung. There are no "good guys" in this case, so if you fancy a retrial, be careful what you wish for.
I haven't stated a position on whether or not I "want" a retrial, and I think my (or your) wishes on the subject really have no bearing on the issue (as they shouldn't). I merely provided an answer to someone else asking "why isn't there a mistrial here?"

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by Zak3056 · 2012-12-01 06:41 · Score: 1

Shouldn't there be a (mis/re)trial regardless?
On what grounds? That the Foreman was involved in a litigation two decades ago that had nothing to do with either party? Yeah... I can see that logic.
I think the issue isn't that he was involved in litigation, I think the issue is that he concealed it, regardless of his motivation for doing so..
When further Coupled with his statements to the press, which paint a picture of, at best, improper conduct in the jury room, I think it raises questions about how impartial the jury was, and it's worth the judge's time to consider the matter..

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by erroneus · 2012-12-01 08:17 · Score: 1

All true. Which is why the juries are screened and their honesty is required as a qualification. This guy was not honest which taints the jury trial. A mistrial and a retrial is certainly warranted just as much as if the Judge happened to own Apple stock and failed to recuse himself.
No that's not the case by Sycraft-fu · 2012-12-01 09:01 · Score: 2

That is only the case on a criminal trial, and then only if nobody finds out about it before hand.
Jury nullification is not a legal right, it isn't something specifically granted to juries. It is a de facto ability in criminal trials due to the prohibition against double jeopardy. Once a jury has been impaneled, if the case is dismissed or an innocent verdict is returned, the case may never be brought for retrial. As such, the jury can nullify by returning an innocent verdict.
However for that matter, the judge can do the same. The judge can dismiss the case after the jury has been seated and that is it. Jeopardy applies, no retrial (there can be a retrial in the case of a mistrial, that is different).
Now, in the event the judge finds out that a juror is trying to ignore the law and persuade other jurors to do likewise, the judge can dismiss the juror and bring in an alternate, or declare a mistrial and have the case retried.
Also this only applies to innocent verdicts. If a jury finds someone guilty for reasons outside the law a judge can set aside the verdict, an appellate court can toss out the case, and so on. There is no prohibition against review of guilty verdicts and indeed it happens all the time, on many levels. Only innocent verdicts are unreviewable because of the fifth amendment.
However none of this matters in a civil case, because both sides can appeal. So regardless of what the jury finds, it can be appealed and thus reviewed. Doesn't matter if the jury finds the respondent responsible or not, it can be appealed.
1. Re:No that's not the case by phantomfive · 2012-12-01 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  In civil cases, the 7th amendment applies
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:No that's not the case by Sycraft-fu · 2012-12-01 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not in the same way. Verdicts can still be reviewed. Even if the courts can't challenge findings of fact, they can challenge application of the law, which is the argument in this case. Also they can change the awards. That last one is real common. Juries tend to be very free with other people's money and the appellate courts often reign that in.
Re:Simple: statute of limitations by symbolset · 2012-12-01 09:51 · Score: 1

The time limit was "ever".

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Looks like he answered truthfully by Quila · 2012-12-01 12:32 · Score: 1

Have you been involved in relevant litigation IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. The suit was more than ten years ago. If he's on the jury wrongfully, it's because they didn't ask the right questions.
1. Re:Looks like he answered truthfully by Quila · 2012-12-03 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  He says the question he was asked was limited to the last 10 years. It's easily verified by the court, so he'd have to be pretty dumb to lie about that.
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by Sique · 2012-12-01 12:34 · Score: 1

The problem arised when Samsung found out that the foreman of the jury did not answer truthfully, when asked if he was ever involved in a civil lawsuit. So Samsung filed a motion pointing out that problem, and Apple opposed the motion saying: "You should have known." To which Samsung replied: "So when did you know?". As the lawsuit in question was about two decades ago, it wasn't easy to find (and only the former foreman's interviews and some happy circumstances helped to dig out the lawsuit in question), and Apple had to admit that they didn't know either, so their motion is moot, as Samsung could possibly not have known either.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Why does it matter if/when Apple knew? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-12-01 20:42 · Score: 2

You don't seem to understand the difference between "ignorance of facts" and "ignorance of the law".
You also seem to have questionable taste in film.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.