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.
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.
@Samcraig:
You find that offensive because you are East Asian or because you live in East Asia and see that business is not conducted that way?
Hey so why isn't macrumors posting about how apple has to pay all legal fees in the uk ruling due to how they handled the verdict ? (Misleading immature statements)
The problem is really on you. You need to at least be objective enough to consider why he would have regarded your comment as trash. You applied extremely broad reasoning to a situation without any real basis.
The judge asked an open ended question, the juror followed up with specific information, the judge asked follow up questions on that specific case then ENDED the questioning. The juror did not lie or withhold anything. The judge failed in the questioning. The judge never asked if there were any other cases or even provided any sort if opportunity for the juror to share any.
While I'm not sure on mr666 base of reasoning, but I don't think he is too far off.
I've lived in Asia and been to most of the surrounding Asian countries. I've seen everything from counterfeit clothing, mass produced DVD's to fake rolexes. The majority I do find come from Asia. I think the more established big name companies tend to do it less, they are more discreet about it.
But a lot, if not most of the good technology comes from these countries too.
@Samcraig:
You find that offensive because you are East Asian or because you live in East Asia and see that business is not conducted that way?
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.
Yes, the juror withheld something. In fact, in a later interview he says that he would have disclosed the information he withheld if only it weren't for that pesky ten year rule (that doesn't exist).
I don't know why he withheld that information. Maybe he's a simpleton. Maybe he's got a chip on his shoulder. Maybe both. Maybe neither.
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 problem is really on you. You need to at least be objective enough to consider why he would have regarded your comment as trash. You applied extremely broad reasoning to a situation without any real basis.
This is correct. The question asked was ever, Not in the last 10 years. Does not matter what jury instructions there were. Everyone knows if you're asked a question as he was, you directly answer the question that was asked. You don't go assuming in the last 10 years was meant. It was not his job to guess if anything was implied. Just answer the direct question with a direct truthful answer. And he did not.
It will be seen if the Judge cares enough about this to make it an issue.
Good grief.
This was clearly going to be trouble the moment that moron went on public tv claiming he needed "to send a message".
Read the transcript. The judge instantly jumped on his first response and focused all questions to that occurence. At no time did the court ask about additional cases or do anything but ask about that one case before terminating the questioning.
There is no problem on me. I have plenty of real basis to apply this reasoning. That's the way of doing business here in East Asia. There is very little innovation, plenty of copying. I'm not saying Sony or Nikon are copying, but the general idea of business in East Asia is to copy whatever others design. Intellectual property protection is nearly non-existent. The whole region reeks of Micky Mouse copies, Apple bite logos on sports shoes, Windows 7 Ultimate for one dollar on every street corner in broad daylight. I suspect it is you who is totally devoid of reason.
This is correct. The question asked was ever, Not in the last 10 years. Does not matter what jury instructions there were. Everyone knows if you're asked a question as he was, you directly answer the question that was asked. You don't go assuming in the last 10 years was meant. It was not his job to guess if anything was implied. Just answer the direct question with a direct truthful answer. And he did not.
It will be seen if the Judge cares enough about this to make it an issue.
give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.
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.
The only thing Samsung is guilty of is making better phones than Apple.
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 ?
Pamela Jones built in excellent reputation over many years. Unfortunately, the reality today is that when Apple gets mentioned, she totally loses it. And if a previously excellent site has turned like Groklaw did, it is not just a matter of not reading it.
Did you bother reading the actual quoted transcript of the court questioning him during voir dire?In my understanding the only time 10 years comes up is when the foreman was defending himself. After that groklaw looked it up and provided the transcripts. And it is not in the transcripts.
So it looks like the foreman omitted material information from the process. And then lied about it.
The alternative is that Samsung is making a big deal of it for no reason at all, which seems a much bigger stretch.
I think it is the duty of the prospective juror to fully answer the questions. For example, later the judge asks whether any in the group are patent owners. One answers that he holds several letting the judge decide which of these are relevant to his eligibility as a jury. That is how you do it.
If the guy had explained that he had been a bit nervous and didn't like to interrupt the judge to say that he forgot to mention that he had been in several suits that would've have been entirely reasonable. Instead he starts talking about this 10 year disclosure period which is nowhere to be found. I think that is a bit suspect.
Even if you believe him don't you find it strange that someone would put a disclosure period on questions to prospective juror? That makes no sense at all.
Did you bother reading the actual quoted transcript of the court questioning him during voir dire?
I dunno why you all keep arguing this 10 year thing. It's kind of a moot point when the guy admits to why he invalidated prior art.
Instead he starts talking about this 10 year disclosure period which is nowhere to be found. I think that is a bit suspect.
Um yea the consequence to that was that they had to pay all of samsungs legal fees. Thats what I was referring to.They did.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/08/apple- removes-code-hiding-samsung-court-order-on-uk-website/