Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Responds to Samsung's Request for Information on Trial Jury Foreman

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,490
30,731



AllThingsD is reporting that Apple has responded to Samsung's claim that jury foreman Velvin Hogan conducted himself improperly during jury selection for the Samsung v. Apple trial. Hogan is under examination for his failure to disclose a previous legal dispute with Seagate, his former employer and one of Samsung's partners. In November, Judge Lucy Koh said she would "consider the questions" of whether Hogan conducted himself improperly.

NewImage13.png
Apple does not accuse juror Velvin Hogan of misconduct -- because there was none -- so what Apple knew and when regarding Mr. Hogan's lawsuit with Seagate nearly two decades ago is irrelevant to any issue raised by Samsung's post-trial motions. Apple does not contend that any past relationship between Mr. Hogan and Seagate, or any lawsuit between them, is anything remotely close to support a challenge for cause.
Click to expand...
Hogan has been one of the more visible members of the jury, speaking with a myriad of news organizations about the decision in the case, which concluded earlier this year. The dispute over Hogan's behavior represents one more incident in the ongoing legal drama between Apple and Samsung.

Article Link: Apple Responds to Samsung's Request for Information on Trial Jury Foreman
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/03/apple-responds-to-samsungs-request-for-information-on-trial-jury-foreman/
DynaFXD

DynaFXD

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2010
799
368
East Coast
Honestly, the only thing that wears on me is when jurors, enabled by news media, think that they are part of the story. When asked to appear on <insert talk show here>, I'd like to see/hear "No thanks, we did our time in the box. Our verdict is in the records. We have nothing to add beyond that and have lives to get on with." That some think that this is their 15 minutes kinda bums me out.
 
Swift

Swift

macrumors 68000
Feb 18, 2003
1,827
964
Los Angeles
Negritude said:
What is there to say about an obviously self-serving statement on the part of Apple?
Click to expand...

Or a fishing expedition by Samsung to find any possible way to have the verdict of the jury quashed? Now, was this man asked about any possible conflicts, aside from the fact that he had experience with patent law trials? And why would that have made him prejudiced against Samsung? "A partner of?" Why stop there? There have been Seagate drives in Apple computers. Maybe it gave him a prejudice against Apple or the Man in the Moon. Unless they come up with more of this than meets the eye, this is just the usual kind of kibbitzing that happens after you lose a billion dollars.
 
A

AllieNeko

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2003
1,004
57
The partner language is a deceptive understatement. Seagate bough Samsung's hard drive unit. So the two companies are rather intertwined now, with Seagate continuing to produce products marketed under the Samsung name
 
blackhand1001

blackhand1001

macrumors 68030
Jan 6, 2009
2,599
33
Swift said:
Or a fishing expedition by Samsung to find any possible way to have the verdict of the jury quashed? Now, was this man asked about any possible conflicts, aside from the fact that he had experience with patent law trials? And why would that have made him prejudiced against Samsung? "A partner of?" Why stop there? There have been Seagate drives in Apple computers. Maybe it gave him a prejudice against Apple or the Man in the Moon. Unless they come up with more of this than meets the eye, this is just the usual kind of kibbitzing that happens after you lose a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

The guy improperly instructed the jurors on the how to proceed with determining whether or not Samsung infringe. He also skipped many steps of the instructions the court had given them to follow.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Apple's disclosure : http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2176.pdf

Exhibit A mentionned in the disclosure : http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2176ExA.pdf

Not really anything interesting here, it's a one-sided reply to a motion. Much more interesting is that Judge Koh granted full public disclosure of the HTC/Apple licensing terms, except for pricing and royalties which will remain sealed (Samsung lawyers get to see it, not the general public) :

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2179.pdf

So we'll get to know exactly which IP (as in patents) HTC is licensing from Apple and if these patents are the same used against Samsung or not.

The interesting developments are scheduled for the 6th of December, when Judge Koh hears both parties motions for Summary Judgement and Samsung's motion for a new trial.

----------
blackhand1001 said:
The guy improperly instructed the jurors on the how to proceed with determining whether or not Samsung infringe. He also skipped many steps of the instructions the court had given them to follow.
Click to expand...

And also failed to recognize proper prior art rules of the USPTO, whereas the Jury found that the Rubber Band patent was valid even though Samsung presented prior art for it, but 2 months later, the USPTO found it invalid in light of the prior art :

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-uspto-invalidates-the-rubber-banding-patent/

This is a serious black eye as far as the Jury's whole decision goes, it really hurts the credibility of their work.

----------
portishead said:
Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as well, since there really isn't anything about Samsung here, it's a motion filed by Apple after Samsung filed a motion to compel them to disclose their prior knowledge of the Jury foreman's lawsuit with Seagate.

Or maybe I'm just curious to see how people will manage to yet again turn this thread into a *****torm of insults rather than discuss the actual facts behind the case. Good job on already trying to trainwreck this thread.
 
S

subsonix

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2008
3,551
79
KnightWRX said:
And also failed to recognize proper prior art rules of the USPTO, whereas the Jury found that the Rubber Band patent was valid even though Samsung presented prior art for it, but 2 months later, the USPTO found it invalid in light of the prior art :

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-uspto-invalidates-the-rubber-banding-patent/
Click to expand...

It's not the same patent that Samsung argued was prior art though. The fact that USPTO has found it invalid based on an earlier patent, is more of a black eye for the USPTO as they then should never have granted it to begin with.
 
P

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
Swift said:
Or a fishing expedition by Samsung to find any possible way to have the verdict of the jury quashed? Now, was this man asked about any possible conflicts, aside from the fact that he had experience with patent law trials? And why would that have made him prejudiced against Samsung? "A partner of?" Why stop there? There have been Seagate drives in Apple computers. Maybe it gave him a prejudice against Apple or the Man in the Moon. Unless they come up with more of this than meets the eye, this is just the usual kind of kibbitzing that happens after you lose a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

the samsung fanboys don't understand when you use logic.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
portishead said:
the samsung fanboys don't understand when you use logic.
Click to expand...

What samsung fanboys ? We're all Apple users discussing a case involving Apple and frankly, if I was Apple at this point I would want a retrial myself with all the questions raised in regards to the lack of proper rigor the jury seems to have displayed. It really does not help the verdict's credibility at all.

The motions do not support a "fishing expedition" nor would the Judge consent to the motions at this point if she thought the motions weren't relevant to the post-trial, pre-judgement phase.
 
P

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
Oletros said:
Apart of trying to flame bait, do you have any thing to say about the case?
Click to expand...

If this were samsungrumors.com you might be right. I have nothing to say other than these lawsuits are stupid but apart from some fanboys nobody really cares.

----------
KnightWRX said:
The motions do not support a "fishing expedition" nor would the Judge consent to the motions at this point if she thought the motions weren't relevant to the post-trial, pre-judgement phase.
Click to expand...

please don't quote me anymore. you say ridiculous things 95% of the time and I'm tired of responding to them.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
portishead said:
please don't quote me anymore. you say ridiculous things 95% of the time and I'm tired of responding to them.
Click to expand...

Sorry what ? What was ridiculous in what I posted ? Move me to ignore if you don't like the facts, but don't call reality ridiculous. Or provide sources and facts to back up any perceived "ridiculousness" in my posts please.

Otherwise, I guess Oletros is right about you, and you're simply trainwrecking what could be a good discussion about the lawsuits.
 
P

portishead

macrumors 65816
Apr 4, 2007
1,114
2
los angeles
KnightWRX said:
Otherwise, I guess Oletros is right about you, and you're simply trainwrecking what could be a good discussion about the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

This post didn't even break a page after a day. I don't think there's much potential for discussion but there you are again trolling lawsuit posts.

----------
thekev said:
It's actually weird when you begin to create theoretical people.
Click to expand...

It's actually weird when you don't realize these theoretical people actually exist, some even posting in this exact thread.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
portishead said:
This post didn't even break a page after a day. I don't think there's much potential for discussion but there you are again trolling lawsuit posts
Click to expand...

Where is this "trolling" you're accusing me of ? I posted links to the court documents filed by Apple, posted another link to another judge decision about the HTC agreement being made public, which would be interesting for people to know.

How is posting links to material of the lawsuit "trolling" exactly ? Trolling would be... hum... calling people trolls and fanboys of companies without providing any discussion. That would be pure trolling.

portishead said:
It's actually weird when you don't realize these theoretical people actually exist, some even posting in this exact thread.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a single Samsung owner post in this thread yet about how his phone is better than any other phone, so maybe you'd need to point out these Samsung fanboys for us, because otherwise, I think you're just suffering from persecution complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom