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."
Why did it take them so bloody long to reply then?
Have you compiled your kernel today??
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.
This submission spams a boring blog, with a link to the real article.
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.
Apple's team is very skilled, so you can replace the 'or' with an 'and'
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.
Samsung didn't know, either, so are they incompetent or lying?
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
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.
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
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.
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
So in other words, the definition of a lawyer.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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();
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
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.
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?
:(){
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.
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!
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.