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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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();