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

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Ah, you're only guessing, how surprising.

The fact is that the transcriptions don't say nothing about 10 years and the fact is that the question was totally clear, it didn't said any timeframe.

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.

[macsmurf]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Prospective jurors, however you want to spin it. Transcripts only mentioned what was said during the trial, not necessarily what was read by them if they were written instructions for instance. More then likely there were some sort of paperwork each person had to read and sign that would not necessarily be recorded by transcripts.

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?

[bradgfromboo]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Ah, you're only guessing, how surprising.

The fact is that the transcriptions don't say nothing about 10 years and the fact is that the question was totally clear, it didn't said any timeframe.

Woah woah woah... don't start getting logical. The sheep can't comprehend logic!

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

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.

Jury instructions are public, can you find where there is that 10 years instructions?

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

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?

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.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

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....21002201632770

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.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

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.

Do you have evidence that there is no tea pot in Jupiter orbit?

[damir00]

"The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."

Good grief.

This was clearly going to be trouble the moment that moron went on public tv claiming he needed "to send a message".

[macsmurf]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

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.

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.

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.

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.

[damir00]

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.

[Glideslope]

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.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

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.

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 ?

----------

Originally Posted by Glideslope

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.

[macfacts]

Originally Posted by Saladinos

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.

"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"

[coder12]

Originally Posted by seven2k7

stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!

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.

[MacCurry]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

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.

[thasan]

Originally Posted by benthewraith

No matter what leadership changes occur, being sued into bankruptcy isn't something you forget, particularly if you get a chance to rake that same company over years later.

so? whats ur point? that he voluntarily say something that is not asked or considered according to the legal procedures?

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by MacCurry

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.

I have no problem with that.

[AppleMacFinder]

All these trials don't add anything to the innovations - just a waste of people's time and money.
At least, lawyers are happy.

[macfacts]

Originally Posted by nia820

Apple has ripped off tons of other companies as well. It's kinda of like the pot calling the kettle black.

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

[iOsDroid]

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)

[mr666]

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.

[samcraig]

Or it's that Samsung doesn't believe it copied and/or that the patents in question aren't valid. They were taken to court over them and now will fight to win their case like any defendant.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Or it's that Samsung doesn't believe it copied

I really hope that's not the case because they'd have to be completely delusional...

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

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.

[ConCat]

Originally Posted by clibinarius

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

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.