Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 10, 2012, 07:30 PM   #76
bushido
macrumors 601
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Espaņa y Germany
those judges must be so annoyed by both

actually nvm its easy money
bushido is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:21 PM   #77
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by damir00 View Post
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.
Doesn't matter now is not the time for follow up on voir dire questioning lol. If he did not lie it is a non issue. If he said not in the last ten years that is not a lie and simply a failure on attorneys to follow up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.
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.

Unless the judge wishes to nail herself for being incompetent I don't see how the voir dire stuff will lead anywhere. The juror did not lie nor did they withhold any information. They answered the questions that were asked. That the court or Samsung failed in the questioning is on them.

The judge clearly screwed up but I don't see how that can be placed on the juror. The court transcript on the courts questioning of the juror is very clear. The court did not ask not did it allow for any additional cases to be discussed.

Last edited by stridemat; Nov 11, 2012 at 03:50 AM. Reason: merged consecutive posts
marksman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:21 AM   #78
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr666 View Post
@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?
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.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:14 AM   #79
linuxophile
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: here
Quote:
Originally Posted by iOsDroid View Post
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)
They did.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/08/...on-uk-website/
linuxophile is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:45 AM   #80
linuxcooldude
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:30 AM   #81
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
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.
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.
macsmurf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:35 AM   #82
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
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.
I really hate generalization, especially when the results of his quasi-analysis are extrapolated over a continent that contains several billion people. His statement after that was also nonsense. I'll quote it below. I'm aware that a number of counterfeit goods come out of this part of the world. It's just not a valid point of discussion in a court case, and he was way too broad. Look at his last response when someone else questioned his logic. He doesn't agree so maybe he's one of them.

Quote:
@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?
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 02:40 AM   #83
clibinarius
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConCat View Post
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.
You're absolutely right. A professional copycat can violate someone else's rights because they're so good, no one can tell its illegal.

You do realize that this is a gigantic conspiracy theory, logically, I hope. It means, if you lose a lawsuit, you're a copycat, and if you win, you're a really good copycat. No way out of the copycat label, despite the win meaning, not a copy cat, certified by law.
clibinarius is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 03:30 AM   #84
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.
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.
marksman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 05:40 AM   #85
the8thark
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by damir00 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:17 AM   #86
mr666
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
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.
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.
mr666 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:21 AM   #87
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
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.
I think he mentioned the "10 year" limit referring to the questionnaire. It's possible that in the jury room he asked someone how long he had to go back and someone told him 10 years.

As for the question, the juror did answer it and doesn't appear to have willfully withheld information. The judge could have and probably should have followed up with a question as to whether there were any other lawsuits. Instead she went right into detail about the case he brought up. Remember, the judge's incentive is to get a jury seated. That's why attorneys are permitted only a limited number of challenges.

I was on a jury on a murder trial once, and one of the other jurors had revealed in voir dire that his wife had been murdered about 20 years earlier. Apparently that didn't bother the judge and the attorneys used their challenges on someone else since he got on the jury.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by damir00 View Post
Good grief.

This was clearly going to be trouble the moment that moron went on public tv claiming he needed "to send a message".
That assumes that he even knew that the partner worked at the law firm, and that 15 years after he left Seagate that Samsung sold its hard drive business to them in exchange for a small stake.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 07:43 AM   #88
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
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.
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.
macsmurf is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 08:25 AM   #89
swy05
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr666 View Post
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.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/11/i...anon-overtake/

Article is a little outdated but you get the picture.

Wow, see all those Far East Asian countries on there? Damn, they must have stole and tricked everyone to get those patents granted.

Even the biggest thief of all time Samsung is number 2 on there. They must have tricked everyone!!

Those dirty East Asians. Deceiving everyone and stealing everyone's ideas. How did they get those patents?





swy05 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 10:21 AM   #90
Rogifan
macrumors 604
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Seems to me Samsung knew exactly what they were doing and probably hoped for a mistrial all along.
__________________
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Rogifan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 10:24 AM   #91
linuxcooldude
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
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.
I would say it does matter what the court instructions said. Whats the point in having court instructions if they are not meant to be followed. That would confuse the jury on what their job is suppose to be.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 11:57 AM   #92
CapnJackGig
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS82712 View Post
give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.
The only thing Samsung is guilty of is making better phones than Apple.
CapnJackGig is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 12:50 PM   #93
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.
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.
pacalis is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:44 PM   #94
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnJackGig View Post
The only thing Samsung is guilty of is making better phones than Apple.
I'd say innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

Interesting how flamebait like yours is voted up.
gnasher729 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 01:55 PM   #95
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 04:25 PM   #96
marksman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
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.
Just reading the latest information on this case she clearly has an axe to grind when it comes to apple.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
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.
Did you bother reading the actual quoted transcript of the court questioning him during voir dire?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
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.
You really think it is the juror's responsibility to insist the judge not interrupt and ask questions? The guy started answering the question, the judge jumped on board and asked several follow ups on that circumstance and then pointedly moved on.

No reasonable person would have thought to correct the judge or talk out of turn. The judge is the expert there and the one in charge of the process. It is not reasonable to think he should have reacted any differently.

If someone asked you if you ever owned a car and you started talking about your favorite car and they asked you follow up questions about your favorite car and then moved on to someone else you are not to blame for them not knowing every car you ever owned. They did not allow for it.
marksman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 04:42 PM   #97
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
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. It was on the false pretense that the patents were valid due to the processors on older devices not being able to run Apple's patented implementation. Processors had nothing to do with it, weren't even mentioned in the patents themselves. Only the implementation and results were outlined.

An analogy would be Apple patenting a rolling wheel. Now we all know the wheel has been around for at least 20 years now. Apple particular implementation has a few extra bells and whistles, but it's the rolling motion they've got a patent for. They then go and start suing other companies who use rolling wheels. It goes to court, this guy gets on the jury, looks at the patent and prior art, and says "Apple's wheel couldn't have been done 20 years ago. Theirs is made of plastic, and plastic wasn't around back then. Apple's invention is unique".

It doesn't matter that plastic wasn't around. Their patent only covers the rolling motion of the wheel, not the material it's made from, so his judgement is flawed. His supposed grudge with Seagate and all that other good stuff is completely beside this one huge ass glaring point.

Last edited by Renzatic; Nov 11, 2012 at 05:43 PM. Reason: proofreading is your friend
Renzatic is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 05:46 PM   #98
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksman View Post
Did you bother reading the actual quoted transcript of the court questioning him during voir dire?
I read the transcript linked on Groklaw.

Attacking my legitimacy is troll move. If you have any useful information to add, like some super secret transcripts, then you should spend your time posting that.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.
It's anything buy moot. If Samsung can show that the jury was biased because of material information that was with-held from the court, the decision will not hold. If the foreman is found to be deceptive and biased, and thus not acting in the courts interest, the jury finding will not matter.
pacalis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 06:21 PM   #99
damir00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
Instead he starts talking about this 10 year disclosure period which is nowhere to be found. I think that is a bit suspect.
That's the thing - if he had just shut the hell up it would be one thing - but this "10 year" nonsense he's fabricating just makes him look like he's in CYA mode.

Will be interesting to see how the judge deals with all this.
damir00 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 08:19 PM   #100
iOsDroid
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxophile View Post
Um yea the consequence to that was that they had to pay all of samsungs legal fees. Thats what I was referring to.
iOsDroid is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC