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

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by samcraig

A fair trial is a fair trial.

Yeah, sounds good, but who gets to determine what is fair? Is that person or person's fair? How do you know when something is fair? What are the criteria to use? Who gets to choose the criteria and why? What I'm saying is life isn't fair, never has been and never will be. If and when you think it's fair, does that make it fair?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by KeyDemo

Perhaps you missed it:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/26/...-site-samsung/

Indeed in review the judge didn't like how it was posted but actually Apple posted nearly the full text of the order.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/01/...n-ipad-design/

Perhaps you missed it:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

Why Apple was forced to change the text and why he has to pay ALL the legal costs to Samsung

[macsmurf]

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.

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

[token787]

He was trying to get back at the company that messed him over but in the process scr**ed hisself once again.

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

No, no, even THEY know it, but they just won't admit it. LOL

[bradgfromboo]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

No, no, even THEY know it, but they just won't admit it. LOL

Ya Samsung uses rectangles..... its true.... but I see a whole lot more copying coming from apple here soon... notification bar, larger screens. They are already behind and will get lapped soon. 5 year old OSs don't impress people

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by bradgfromboo

Ya Samsung uses rectangles..... its true.... but I see a whole lot more copying coming from apple here soon... notification bar, larger screens. They are already behind and will get lapped soon.

Admittedly, most companies do a little copying here and there, and APPLE is no exception.

Originally Posted by bradgfromboo

5 year old OSs don't impress people

Apparently, there are millions of fools out there, or more likely, millions of people disagree with you, and ARE impressed with APPLE's OS's.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

Admittedly, most companies do a little copying here and there, and APPLE is no exception.



Apparently, there are millions of fools out there, or more likely, millions of people disagree with you, and ARE impressed with APPLE's OS's.

My only rebuttal for that would be in the word impressed. That is more than accepts, enjoys, prefers, etc. Semantically speaking, of course. I can love my iPhone and not be impressed by it. I can be impressed by my iPhone and still not prefer it.

[MacFather]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

[anubis72]

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? (Yes, there are things like loss of profits, blah blah blah--anyone involving themselves in this degree of legislature isn't hurting in the pocketbook, IMHO).

I hate to defend anyone in this case, but aren't there really a finite amount of designs one can incorporate into a phone design? If one works, why not base your designs off of it? Is someone expected to produce a triangular-shaped smartphone with a command prompt in place of a UI? (The bearded Linux elitists all have boners right now...)

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. I think the entire (OK, 99.99%?) judicial system revolves around protecting the incredibly retarded individuals who can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. It's also ridiculous that people don't research a phone to know the differences either. Are you going to rely on the Wal-Mart employee to educate you on the differences between smartphones? Really? I say too ****ing bad. Wipe the drool off your chin and move along now...

[SirLance99]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

The rest of the world's courts disagree.

[johannar]

No one can deny the fact that Samsung copied Apple a number of times but still Apple losing most cases

[Mystic386]

So I think the thread was about whether the foreman conducted himself properly. Just to bring us back to topic.

The reality is Samsungs lawyers should use anything possible to delay, stall, hold up, misdirect, raise doubt and win the case. That's what lawyers are about. Winning for their clients. They're not interested in who is right or wrong. That's the Judges job. Great lawyers play to win. Not to prove who is right in law.

So taking on the jury foreman because they think it could help makes sense.

Should the Jury Forman have kept quiet? Yes, probably. Ego maybe?

But does Seagate make him biased against Samsung... no. Apple use a fair bit of Seagate as well.

If Samsung can score off this it's worth the time and effort. But right now this is Judge directed it appears.

Lucy Koh seems to be doing a thorough job.

Should Samsung pay dearly. Yes absolutely. But this is not about what is right under law. It's about who can present the better argument.

Maybe Apple needs to look at the lawyers it hires.

[linuxcooldude]

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

He was indeed telling the truth. As a part of his jury instructions he was required to tell of any litigation he was a part of within the last 10 years. So any court cases hes ever been involved in within the last 10 years would apply.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

He was indeed telling the truth. As a part of his jury instructions he was required to tell of any litigation he was a part of within the last 10 years. So any court cases hes ever been involved in within the last 10 years would apply.

Can you point where is said 10 years?

[linuxcooldude]

Its in the very article that he linked in his post.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Its in the very article that he linked in his post.

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?

[macsmurf]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Its in the very article that he linked in his post.

No it isn't. The article says that Hogan explained that he was only asked about the last 10 years. The actual transcripts, however, tell a different story.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by JS82712

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

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.

[linuxcooldude]

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.

[rocknblogger]

Originally Posted by Mystic386

So I think the thread was about whether the foreman conducted himself properly. Just to bring us back to topic.

The reality is Samsungs lawyers should use anything possible to delay, stall, hold up, misdirect, raise doubt and win the case. That's what lawyers are about. Winning for their clients. They're not interested in who is right or wrong. That's the Judges job. Great lawyers play to win. Not to prove who is right in law.

So taking on the jury foreman because they think it could help makes sense.

Should the Jury Forman have kept quiet? Yes, probably. Ego maybe?

But does Seagate make him biased against Samsung... no. Apple use a fair bit of Seagate as well.

If Samsung can score off this it's worth the time and effort. But right now this is Judge directed it appears.

Lucy Koh seems to be doing a thorough job.

Should Samsung pay dearly. Yes absolutely. But this is not about what is right under law. It's about who can present the better argument.

Maybe Apple needs to look at the lawyers it hires.

I agree that he may not be biased against Samsung but being involved in patent litigation himself can and I believe did influence his decisions. Taking it a step further, he was the jury foreman. He definitely had influence on the rest of the jurors and if his decision process was flawed or influenced due to his experiences regarding his personal patent litigation case then I think it's fair to say that him being on the jury had a direct influence on the final verdict.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

It was in the jury instructions.

Where? You know that they still were not jurors so there was no jury instructions.

Are you saying that transcriptions are not complete?

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

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.

How it was implied if there was no mention of any time limit?

[nia820]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Whether he conducted himself improperly or not, Samsung is still 100% guilty of ripping off Apple. And besides, he didn't do noting wrong anyways.

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

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Where? You know that they still were not jurors so there was no jury instructions.

Are you saying that transcriptions are not complete?



How it was implied if there was no mention of any time limit?

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.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

Transcripts only mentioned what was said during the trial, not necessarily what was read by them if they were written instructions for instance.

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.