I would also say your guessing yourself. You weren't at the trial, you didn't see how the jurors were screened, what instructions were presented or when in the process that actually started recording these transcripts. As you said it yourself, this was pre-trial. Its not conducted in the same manner as a regular trial.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would also say your guessing yourself. You weren't at the trial, you didn't see how the jurors were screened, what instructions were presented or when in the process that actually started recording these transcripts. As you said it yourself, this was pre-trial. Its not conducted in the same manner as a regular trial.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that such a piece of paper exists? Do you have any references to any other cases where this supposed ten year disclosure limit has been put in place? Can you think of any reason why a court would want to do so?
Jury instructions are public, can you find where there is that 10 years instructions?
Do you have any evidence that no such time limit did not exist or that court instructions are required to be part of the transcript?
Laws for each state vary so to say, what one state might do, does not always apply in another state.
To which he answered truthfully "yes". He was in some court case ten years ago and said "yes". Apparently he was not asked then for a list of all court cases he was involved in.
By the way, two years ago you might have taken stuff from groklaw as "impartial". Today, you can't. According to them, everything that Apple is doing is to destroy open source software somehow. Because Google, and by extension Samsung, is the defender of open source. Don't ask, I don't understand it either.
No, that is not true. He answered with his recollection of a suit he was involved in in 2008. Furthermore, he later stated in the Bloomberg interview that if the question had been open-ended he would have disclosed information about the earlier case.
It was, and he didn't.
This information comes from the court transcripts and the Bloomberg interview. If groklaw is in fact biased I find it curious that no one else has been able to provide a reference to where and how this ten year disclosure limit was communicated to the prospective jurors.
He clearly didn't fully answer the question he was asked. There is simply no disputing this.
The question now is whether the judge should, or will, find that relevant.
If the guy has half a brain, at this point he would start shutting the hell up and letting his own lawyer do any required talking.
The question now is whether the judge should, or will, find that relevant.
If the guy has half a brain, at this point he would start shutting the hell up and letting his own lawyer do any required talking.
Too Bad
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.
Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.
Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.
Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.
Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.
Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.
Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
Just because you don't agree with Pam's opinion doesn't mean Pam doesn't post facts, court documents, and transcripts.
Are you saying the court transcripts, the Apple motions, are biased against Apple ? Because those are pretty much just integral source material...
Groklaw is a very neutral source of information. Pam isn't a neutral player, but the information she posts, the facts she uses, are impartial as impartial can be as they are direct Court Documents. Her opinion is biased sure, but you're not forced to read her opinion now are you ?
----------
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.
Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.
Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.
Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
Apple actually has everything to gain from the current verdict being overturned and a retrial occurring. There's just too much coming out right now and people are doubting the legitimacy of the verdict itself.
This isn't good for Apple. Having the verdict hold up on technicalities will not dispelled the uncertainty and doubt around it. A retrial, with the same possible outcome, would. If anything, will all their loses elsewhere in the world, Apple either needs to drop the litigation tactic or secure 1 dead certain victory, which they have not yet.
"in the last 10 years" ... do you know who said that? The jury foreman in question. He was the one that said 10 years, not the lawyers, not the judge. There have been multiple news stories that mentioned this and those reporters even went to the source (the trial transcripts) and there is no mention of a "10 years"
Everybody's stocks have been lowering lately (have you looked at Google's and Amazon's?) so I'd doubt this lawsuit and everything else that has been going on lately is what's affecting Apple.
Looks like Apple will be suing Velvin next.
Nothing will come of this. Lucy is just making sure the verdict stands on appeal. This is window dressing. Samsung and Apple new the same things about Velvet.
Samsung choose to keep him. I know, a grand conspiracy. Samsung knew he wanted to tarnish their relationship with Seagate. So they kept him knowing they might be able to use him later to embarrass Apple.
Yada, yada, yada. Non event.
I agree nothing will come of this. Lucy Koh is doing this to protect the verdict of her court because she knows the jury award and verdict will be overturned in US Appeals Court. The USPTO has already invalidated an Apple patent related to this case dealing with the "rubber band" effect and others too will be overturned on closer scrutiny.
Yes, Apple wants thermo-nuclear war, but when your adversaries also have nukes all of this will become mutually assured destruction.
so? whats ur point? that he voluntarily say something that is not asked or considered according to the legal procedures?
All these trials don't add anything to the innovations - just a waste of people's time and money.
At least, lawyers are happy.
At least, lawyers are happy.
As an example, here is a small list from the top of my head
1) the name Apple, the name iOS, the name iPhone (from Apple Corps and Cisco)
2) the mp3 player idea and how the files are accessed (from Creative)
3) the wifi sync idea and app icon in iOS (from iOS dev greg hughes)
4) the idea and look of iBooks (from the app delicious library) and that company's employees
5) the Swiss clock design
I agree that it isn't up to the potential juror to say "Oh, you forgot to ask me about...." It is up to the court (judge-attorneys). Even so, it is all stuff and nonsense. Samsung are whining about a mere $1 billion fine that will not hurt their bottom line, given the level of their business-- even considering just their level of mobile phone business. Samsung are fully aware that any banning of sales of phone models is useless. They produce all new models every three or four months, and the lawsuits take more than one year. They are being banned from selling discontinued models. They are whining like Bre're Rabbit in the briar patch. It is impossible to stop their copying by fining them a billion. That's chump change at their level of business.
Surely it is far cheaper to copy Apple and pay the fines than to put a few billion dollars into innovative design and development. What they hope is that by complaining a lot, and possibly getting a higher court to rule in their favor, that they crush the whole concept of intellectual property and protection outright.
Surely it is far cheaper to copy Apple and pay the fines than to put a few billion dollars into innovative design and development. What they hope is that by complaining a lot, and possibly getting a higher court to rule in their favor, that they crush the whole concept of intellectual property and protection outright.
Last edited by a moderator:
I really hope that's not the case because they'd have to be completely delusional...
Perhaps the wrong phrasing. Perhaps Samsung doesn't believe that their products are copies of Apple's but their own take.
We can rehash the whole discussion about "copying" etc - but I'd rather not.
My point to the poster is that it's entirely possible and more probably his scenario is wrong. I don't think Samsung decided it was easier to get sued then to invest in R&D.
Part of being a professional copycat is making sure your copies can pass any litigation. Samsung steals a lot, that much is evident. They're good at what they do, very good.