Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

KnightWRX · Nov 12, 2012

linuxcooldude said:
As usual, you and your Samsung posse always seem to take everything I say as a fact rather then conjecture, then its on you.

You initially made a statement of fact. If all your doing is offering your opinion, then it's been shown false by facts posted in rebuttal of it pages ago, why are you still arguing ?

Plain : you posted a fact, got told it was wrong, shown it was wrong, and told where to find evidence to back it up if you still believe it true. Now that you can't, you go all "ad homimem" with the "Samsung posse" (what's that anyway ? A samsung posse ?) and say "hey, it was all an opinion".

Well guess what, your opinion wasn't based in reality and reality just hit you like a 3 ton truck. Deal and stop wasting our time.

TrentS · Nov 12, 2012

Aper!!!

clibinarius said:
Them and every other court in the world and millions of Samsung costumers...etc.

What exactly is a Samsung costumer? Oh!! It's where a designer at Samsung can't come up with an original design of his own for a product, so he adds a costume to a competitors design, and pawns it off as his own.

linuxcooldude · Nov 12, 2012

KnightWRX said:
You initially made a statement of fact. If all your doing is offering your opinion, then it's been shown false by facts posted in rebuttal of it pages ago, why are you still arguing ?

Plain : you posted a fact, got told it was wrong, shown it was wrong, and told where to find evidence to back it up if you still believe it true. Now that you can't, you go all "ad homimem" with the "Samsung posse" (what's that anyway ? A samsung posse ?) and say "hey, it was all an opinion".

Well guess what, your opinion wasn't based in reality and reality just hit you like a 3 ton truck. Deal and stop wasting our time.

It was conjecture rather then a fact when I posted this:

linuxcooldude said:
It was not something that was fabricated by the forums but a statement made by the jury foreman.

And this:

If such a questionare was filled out it does not necessarily mean its going to be mentioned about its contents in the court transcripts.

And lastly in response to Oletros statement on what Hogan said, not what I stated as fact:

Originally Posted by Oletros
No, in the article says that Hogan said that the court asked him for trials in the last 10 years.

Can you point where in the trial transcriptions say 10 years?

"It was in the jury instructions. I believe the transcripts don't mention the 10 year limit when the judge asked the question. But either way I don't see how that matters. It was implied to the jury of the time limit when asking of any court cases in which they participated."

Putting the time limit in the jury instruction, then not adhering to that instruction is leading to jury confusion.

If that is the case, its not the fault of the jury but that of the courts and/or the judge.

If you read more carefully you might of picked that up.

Just because it was not mentioned in the transcripts does not make it proof. Just something that may not of been talked about in court.

clibinarius · Nov 12, 2012

TrentS said:
What exactly is a Samsung costumer? Oh!! It's where a designer at Samsung can't come up with an original design of his own for a product, so he adds a costume to a competitors design, and pawns it off as his own.

What's an Apple customer? A consumer of Samsung guts.

Grow up.

RobertoCravallo · Nov 13, 2012

linuxcooldude said:
I think people are confused, such as yourself, on what I'm trying to say. I'm not necessarily going against what is in the transcripts but rather what may not be shown in them.

Transcripts are only a recording of spoken dialog and don't cover things like written legal paperwork or electronic documents. Just because we don't see it as a part of the transcripts doesn't mean it does not exist as a written document somewhere.
In a trial like this generates quite a lot of documents.

And as long as you keep using words like "may", we are getting nowhere fast! There may be a yeti and there may be an area 51.

As long as there is no proof, "may" will just get us nowhere.....

----------

linuxcooldude said:
As usual, you and your Samsung posse always seem to take everything I say as a fact rather then conjecture, then its on you.

Wow, this is really cute. Now you basically 'talked' yourself into a corner and ran out of facts!!! Good time to start name calling, makes us take your arguments even more serious........

By the way: I don't think I own a single product that says SAMSUNG on it. My next phone will though.....

iBug2 · Nov 13, 2012

KnightWRX said:
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 ?

No you're not, but facts can be as impartial as opinions. Choosing the specific facts that support your opinion yet not mentioning any other facts standing against your opinion is the most disgusting way to seem impartial while being extremely biased. I hate when people lie with facts. Lying with falsehood is more honest. And none of this is directed at Pam specifically.

TrentS · Nov 13, 2012

He's All Growed Up!

clibinarius said:
What's an Apple customer? A consumer of Samsung guts.

Grow up.

I, so I guess that gives Samsung the right to innovation and design piracy? I guess I missed that ethics class...

KdParker · Nov 13, 2012

samcraig said:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...s-jury-misconduct-in-bid-for-new-apple-trial/

well that really looks like a stretch to get a new trial calling that jury tampering.

clibinarius · Nov 13, 2012

TrentS said:
I, so I guess that gives Samsung the right to innovation and design piracy? I guess I missed that ethics class...

Prove it before a court of law. Oh wait, you can't-except a few miles from Apple's HQ.

I didn't realize it was ethical in IT to never license anything either. Almost all manufacturers don't buy up things to limit competition, but rather license them. Without Samsung's designs, there would be no iPhone. Without an iPhone, there would still be touch screen phones, as countless designs have demonstrated, some before the iPhone was announced. Regardless of what you think about Apple (Only innovating company) or Samsung (clearly guilty of piracy to you), that's a fact. No one needs Apple to survive, but Apple needs everyone else. And that's why you see so much of a backlash against Apple on these suits. Its not that we hate Apple. Hell, I love Apple products. Its that there's this myth Apple's being innovative right now (how?), and drives innovation (how?), rather than just make and market good products. But we don't like Apple trying to buy up the competition driving up prices on some services, and suing what they can't control. Apple's behavior in the past few years has been very anti-competitive. Its as if they didn't learn the lesson of Microsoft and instead of licensing the software (which would put Apple in Microsoft's position combined with still releasing taylor made hardware, or Apple's current position), they've decided to go all in, wreck the consumer market and say they're the only ones who are allowed to make things. Doesn't work that way, and Apple deserves to lose these lawsuits on many levels. After all, why can't TI sue Apple over their calculators? Oh wait, they licensed their designs. Same with a lot of other things the iPhone uses. But what has Apple allowed Samsung to license at a reasonable price? Oh wait, nothing. And Apple's patents (that they fight over, anyway) are almost all geared towards appearance. None towards actual hardware design beyond fitting something into a specified shell it seems. There's a reason a lot of the industry didn't patent that stuff: They didn't think they were too valuable, nor did they see someone coming along and suing them over what's been practice in computers and IT since the Windows-Macintosh issue years ago.

And had Apple held onto its OS too long, Microsoft would've pulled the plug on Office, which would've moved everyone to MS Dos and put Apple in worse fiscal straights quicker. But the bitterness of Windows winning doesn't allow you to see that, does it.

Edit: Not office. Apps that would become office. I misspoke there.

TrentS · Nov 13, 2012

Blah Blah Blah....

clibinarius said:
Prove it before a court of law. Oh wait, you can't-except a few miles from Apple's HQ.

I didn't realize it was ethical in IT to never license anything either. Almost all manufacturers don't buy up things to limit competition, but rather license them. Without Samsung's designs, there would be no iPhone. Without an iPhone, there would still be touch screen phones, as countless designs have demonstrated, some before the iPhone was announced. Regardless of what you think about Apple (Only innovating company) or Samsung (clearly guilty of piracy to you), that's a fact. No one needs Apple to survive, but Apple needs everyone else. And that's why you see so much of a backlash against Apple on these suits. Its not that we hate Apple. Hell, I love Apple products. Its that there's this myth Apple's being innovative right now (how?), and drives innovation (how?), rather than just make and market good products. But we don't like Apple trying to buy up the competition driving up prices on some services, and suing what they can't control. Apple's behavior in the past few years has been very anti-competitive. Its as if they didn't learn the lesson of Microsoft and instead of licensing the software (which would put Apple in Microsoft's position combined with still releasing taylor made hardware, or Apple's current position), they've decided to go all in, wreck the consumer market and say they're the only ones who are allowed to make things. Doesn't work that way, and Apple deserves to lose these lawsuits on many levels. After all, why can't TI sue Apple over their calculators? Oh wait, they licensed their designs. Same with a lot of other things the iPhone uses. But what has Apple allowed Samsung to license at a reasonable price? Oh wait, nothing. And Apple's patents (that they fight over, anyway) are almost all geared towards appearance. None towards actual hardware design beyond fitting something into a specified shell it seems. There's a reason a lot of the industry didn't patent that stuff: They didn't think they were too valuable, nor did they see someone coming along and suing them over what's been practice in computers and IT since the Windows-Macintosh issue years ago.

And had Apple held onto its OS too long, Microsoft would've pulled the plug on Office, which would've moved everyone to MS Dos and put Apple in worse fiscal straights quicker. But the bitterness of Windows winning doesn't allow you to see that, does it.

Edit: Not office. Apps that would become office. I misspoke there.

Oh, sorry. Did you say something?

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

drwam said:
The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. .

Would Hogan have cause to know about this partnership. If no, then asking the question of 'have you ever been involved in business dealings or any legal act switch either party to this case or a company either party does business with' would iffy since Hogan might say no simply because he'd have no clear way of having the details to say yes. If they didn't follow up asking about any legal actions and with whom that's their fault

----------

benthewraith said:
. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury.

That question hasn't been broached yet. Samsung is likely saving it, if they can even use it, for a second appeal if this one fails.

At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

Thats what Samsung is trying to argue. Via saying that Hogan willfully his information from them, implying that he did so to get on the jury just to screw Samsung by insuring they were wrongly found guilty, thus getting back at Seagate by association.

----------

KeyDemo said:
Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence.

Anything not said in the courtroom or contained in documents submitted in the courtroom is outside evidence. including past experience.

Hogan may have screwed this case by talking to the public where he said he used his past knowledge of patents etc from his own case to educate the jury.

That said, even if that question ever come up and this is tossed and Samsung gets a second trial and is more careful with jury selection, they could still lose again. It's no promise.

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

damir00 said:
Are you freakin' kidding me? How did this guy get through the jury selection?!

"Explaining a conceptual concept" that is material to the decision under deliberation is not the foreman's job.

Generally no, the correct action is to tell the judge that the jury is too confused by the concept and needs explanation. Then they are brought into the courtroom where on record, the issue is explained.

But it isn't a guaranteed mistrial that they didn't do this if the jury instructions didn't require such a move etc.

----------

macsmurf said:
You are not telling the truth.

"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?"

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121002201632770

But are we 100% certain we are looking at an accurate quote. We really can't say can we.

Regardless.

That article points out that it was very easy to do a search for Hogans case so Samsung should have been able to find it and similar for all the jurors. Did they bother? Did they hide knowing this information in case they needed it later?

There are whole companies who do nothing but background checks on potential jurors for just this kind of thing. Lawyers often know by the end of the first day who they want to cut based on such information, regardless of what is said in questioning.

----------

anubis72 said:
I like both companies. Call me simplistic (or missing the point altogether), but isn't this entire case over whether or not someone would "mistakenly" purchase one company's product over the other due to infringement on design copyrights?

Not the entire case. There were also questions of infringement of non SEP patents by Samsung and infringement of SEP by Apple etc.

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

anubis72 said:
Sorry but if someone isn't smart enough to read "Samsung" or see the Apple logo on a product, then maybe they shouldn't be buying a phone or any consumer products for that matter.

It's not really that simple. It's more about taking something specific and making it generic. If the products are too similar in appearance, physical or UI, then it becomes easier for folks to believe they are OEMs. Computer on the left is clearly made by Dell, computer on the right is clearly made by Toshiba. But they are both 'Windows computers'. By a similar token, the one on the left is clearly labeled Samsung, the right Apple, but they are both 'iPads' right? Same as how last year I got a Dell and this year I'm getting a Toshiba cause its cheaper, both they are really the same thing.

THAT is the fear. That folks will think one is the Apple iPad, the other the Samsung iPad, cause they look the same. And iPad will become a generic term same as aspirin, Kleenex, xerox and even coke

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

Oletros said:
No, in the article says that Hogan said that the court asked him for trials in the last 10 years.

Can you point where in the trial transcriptions say 10 years?

Can you point where in the transcripts Hogan was asked the question.

At this point we are working off secondhand information from the article. We see the question, we see someone else's answer as 'proof' of what Hogan was asked but the real proof would be the literal section involving Hogan. The article didn't quote that

----------

Rodimus Prime said:
considering some of the key patents that apple won on have been declared invalid since the trail not so much any more. This means that the ruling could be completely over turned as it was one on invalid patents.

Only works that way if the overturn was in a court of higher jurisdiction under the same laws. If it was a parallel court or different governing laws, especially from a different country, it's not an automatic reversal of other cases. Guidance perhaps, cause for appeal perhaps but not an automatic toss

That detail is why filing in East Texas is so popular. Said district is biased to the patent holder and basically always finds violation even when there isn't. But most 'victims' are smaller companies that don't try to fight the ruling even if a suit in a parallel district went in their favor. They often can't afford the additional court costs. Apple might be the first to smack ET for the antics and its about time someone did.

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

Glideslope said:
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.

You are correct that Judge Koh wants to be sure this will stand on appeal, but perhaps not correct in what each side knew and did not or motives.

It is possible that Samsung's simply screwed up. They didn't do background on the potentials, they didn't ask the right questions etc. not really a shock to imagine since this is the same group that though publicly releasing nonsubmittable information was a good move.

Oletros · Nov 14, 2012

charlituna said:
Can you point where in the transcripts Hogan was asked the question.

You have quoted it

charlituna · Nov 14, 2012

macfacts said:
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

So much wrong in this list but that is a topic for another thread. You should work on those google and reading skills so you can learn the truth before you speak.

----------

KnightWRX said:
If Judge Koh is taking it under advisement,

She's covering her ass and the verdicts of her court. It looks bad on her if a higher court slam dunks an overturn on one of her verdicts, especially on this kind of technical issue. If she wants to move up to a higher court, this kind of this can block that.

So she's voluntarily going over this issue as a PR move since the interviews brought it into public light.

----------

Oletros said:
You have quoted it

No I didn't. I quoted the same generic presentation from the AI article, sourced from from the Groklaw article etc. Nothing in that was directed to Mr Hogan in a clear cut manner. Based on the materials presented by the source article we have no proof Mr Hogan was asked the question on record. Thus my question, where in the transcripts does it show he was asked the question on record etc

Humorous that you committed a similar move to that which is being is discussed by this whole thread.

Oletros · Nov 14, 2012

charlituna said:
No I didn't. I quoted the same generic presentation from the AI article, sourced from from the Groklaw article etc. Nothing in that was directed to Mr Hogan in a clear cut manner. Based on the materials presented by the source article we have no proof Mr Hogan was asked the question on record. Thus my question, where in the transcripts does it show he was asked the question on record etc

Humorous that you committed a similar move to that which is being is discussed by this whole thread.

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
IN 2008, AFTER MY
COMPANY WENT BELLY UP, THE PROGRAMMER THAT WORKED
FOR ME FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST ME AND ULTIMATELY,
ACROSS THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, IT WAS DISMISSED AND IN
SUCH A FASHION THAT NEITHER ONE OF US COULD SUE THE
OTHER ONE FOR THAT MATTER.

Page 7, line 22 http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

macsmurf · Nov 14, 2012

charlituna said:
But are we 100% certain we are looking at an accurate quote. We really can't say can we.

Are you suggesting that groklaw falsified the court transcripts? Well, that's a new one.

RichardI · Nov 14, 2012

The real problem here is that Apple gets granted patents for objects that are simply not patentable in the first place. According to Apple, if you make a cell phone that is rectangular and has a full size screen on it, you have copied Apple's intellectual property.

As far as I know both rectangles and LCD screens (even touch screens) have already been invented by someone else? Give it up Apple, you come off looking like a bunch of greedy, grungy, slobs.
Then again......

Glideslope · Nov 14, 2012

charlituna said:
You are correct that Judge Koh wants to be sure this will stand on appeal, but perhaps not correct in what each side knew and did not or motives.

It is possible that Samsung's simply screwed up. They didn't do background on the potentials, they didn't ask the right questions etc. not really a shock to imagine since this is the same group that though publicly releasing nonsubmittable information was a good move.

Yes, I agree. Their current posturing could also lend one to surmise they're a little nervous.

Their refusing to settle with Apple will not bode well with the Appellate Review.

IMO. :apple:

macfacts · Nov 14, 2012

charlituna said:
So much wrong in this list but that is a topic for another thread. You should work on those google and reading skills so you can learn the truth before you speak.

Tell me which point in my list is UNTRUE ?

gnasher729 · Nov 15, 2012

KnightWRX said:
Sorry, but Pam[ela Jones of groklaw.net] is the same she's always been. Of course, since you didn't "side" with SCO back then, then you were not as "harmed" by her opinion as you are now with her comments about Apple.

Stop picking sides in fights and little jabs and opinions won't matter to you, you'll just gloss over them.

Just a quote of hers from a recent article about court case between Microsoft and Motorola (or Microsoft and Google, really): "What is it really all about? In my view, it's about disadvantaging Android, by devaluing patents that Android vendors own while keeping utility patents that Microsoft (and Apple) have at full price."

This reeks of paranoia. As I said, everything is about damage to open source software to her. When Apple sues Samsung for copying the shape of the iPad, it's because Apple wants to destroy open source. Not because Samsung tries to steal customers from Apple. It also is clear now to her who is right: Open Source software is always right. So is Google. So is anyone using Android.

----------

RobertoCravallo said:
I really don't understand you. He was a asked a specific question and didn't answer it correctly. The judge has to assume that he told everything, otherwise they would still be picking jurors, right?

No, the judge asked a specific question (a yes - or - no question), which he answered correctly (with a "yes") and gave an example why the answer was yes. Hogan actually more than answered the question that was asked. At least the question we see quoted here. The list of examples was incomplete, but then the judge asked a different question before Hogan could give more examples. Let's see what could happen to you if you were questioned:

Judge: Where do you live?
You: "Gives address"
Judge: Did you always live there?
You: "I moved there five years ago from (other address)"
Judge: What's the name of your wife?

So what to you say now? Do you say the name of your wife, or do you say "sorry judge, but I lived at another place before that, and another place before that"? In the second case, is the judge likely to say "thank you for adding that. I really needed to know that, even though I only asked you whether you always lived in the same place", or more likely to say "Answer the questions you are asked, unless you want to go down for contempt of court"?

So what would you answer?

KnightWRX · Nov 15, 2012

gnasher729 said:
"What is it really all about? In my view, it's about disadvantaging Android, by devaluing patents that Android vendors own while keeping utility patents that Microsoft (and Apple) have at full price."

This reeks of paranoia. As I said, everything is about damage to open source software to her.

Again, you're wearing "Apple colored glasses". Go back and read her site in 2003 with "SCO colored glasses" (you can ask Maureen O'gara for some, she was a staunch groklaw adversary and a SCO apologist who got her face rubbed in it). It's the same kind of commenting.

Of course everything is about damage to open source software, she's covering cases where open source software is involved! Linux, Android, ODF vs OOXML, Oracle v. Google... notice a pattern here ?

You're not making any sense. You're saying that she's changed over the years. She hasn't. Groklaw hasn't. It's still 100% court transcripts, all sides' motions transcribed into HTML. You can stick to the facts and read the transcripts, or you can delve into her biased opinion. But that fact remains : she posts 100% pure facts straight from the courts, unabriged, if you don't wish to take it from her mouth. You can get straight from the horses' mouth.

I don't know what you're trying to gain in discrediting her and her site. She is doing superb work for people in the open source community trying to follow these lawsuits, and even if you don't agree with her and her opinions, her site is still the best source of factual information there is.

Compare that to Florian Muellers' garbage, brought to you by the letter F and U and sponsered by Oracle and Microsoft...

----------

gnasher729 said:
So what would you answer?

I hope if the judge finds Samsung right (and remember folks, if you read their reply to Apple's reply to their motion, it's more than just about that question, all the little tidbits from the media interviews like his poor understanding of what constitues prior art, of not following jury instruction, etc.. is all getting used by Samsung) you'll come back and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

I don't know why both you and Charlituana think you hold any kind of truth here. Issues were raised by Samsung, don't try to answer them, you can't, we can't. We can discuss what was raised, but no one here can pretend to know the validity or not of Samsung's claims yet. Koh gets to rule, Samsung or Apple gets to appeal.

gnasher729 · Nov 15, 2012

KnightWRX said:
I don't know what you're trying to gain in discrediting her and her site. She is doing superb work for people in the open source community trying to follow these lawsuits, and even if you don't agree with her and her opinions, her site is still the best source of factual information there is.

If I disagree with her and her opinions, then obviously I do exactly what I'm doing here: I state that I disagree with her and her opinions. I state that in my opinion, which you are free to disagree with, she is looking at events through her own RDF which tells her that companies act in order to damage Open Source software, as if that was the goal.

The fact is that one big user of Open Source software (Samsung) has been caught infringing on Apple's patents (and has also been caught with a 130 page booklet describing how their software has to be changed to be more like Apple's), but because it is Open Source, and Open Source is always right, every argument that Samsung brings must be right, by definition.

And I also apply the "rounded rectangle" test: Anyone who claims that Apple has a "patent on rounded rectangles" is either a fool or agitating. Unfortunately, Pamela Jones has failed that test, repeatedly.

KnightWRX said:
I hope if the judge finds Samsung right.

Of course you avoided answering the question. If you were in court, having answered a question with a "yes" and given an example why the answer is "yes", and having more to say, and the judge asks a different question, how would you answer?

I hope the judge makes the right decision. You hope the judge finds Samsung right. See the difference?

Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68020

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors 601

macrumors 6502

macrumors 601

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors G3

macrumors G3

macrumors G3

macrumors G3

macrumors G3

macrumors 603

macrumors G3

macrumors 603

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 604

macrumors 601

Suspended

macrumors Pentium

Suspended

Our Staff