Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:14 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple




In a pair of court filings tonight, Judge Lucy Koh published a pair of decisions in Samsung v. Apple. The first filing (via The Verge) denied Samsung's motion for a new trial regarding alleged juror misconduct by jury foreman Velvin Hogan.

Samsung accused Hogan of withholding the fact that he had been involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, a partner of Samsung's. Judge Koh didn't agree, saying in her filing that Samsung's attorneys should have dug up the information.
Quote:
Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.
Judge Koh denied a second motion (via AppleInsider), this one filed by Apple, requesting a U.S. ban on certain Samsung products. The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents.
Quote:
In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung's illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple's motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.
The decisions amount to more jousting in the ongoing legal drama between Samsung and Apple.

Article Link: Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple
MacRumors is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:26 AM   #2
HMI
macrumors 6502a
 
HMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
And this was predictable when it was last reported.
HMI is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 12:31 AM   #3
komodrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I'm almost out of popcorn.
komodrone is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:00 AM   #4
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?
iMikeT is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:11 AM   #5
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.
portishead is offline   24 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 AM   #6
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
This is unfair and Apple is a terr...oh wait.
Renzatic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 AM   #7
TheMacBookPro
macrumors 68020
 
TheMacBookPro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.
The truth hurts.

And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.
__________________
.MacBook Pro¹⁵ (Retina.2.6.16.512) | iPhone⁵ˢ (Space Gray.64.LTE) | iPad³ (Black.64.LTE) | Surfaceᴿᵀ (64.touch) | Nexus⁷ (16)
TheMacBookPro is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 02:49 AM   #8
BlueParadox
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMacBookPro View Post
The truth hurts.

And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.
No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this!

Last edited by BlueParadox; Dec 18, 2012 at 03:02 AM.
BlueParadox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 03:26 AM   #9
BlueParadox
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seeing double

Last edited by BlueParadox; Dec 18, 2012 at 03:33 AM.
BlueParadox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 03:54 AM   #10
H2SO4
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueParadox View Post
No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this!
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
H2SO4 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 04:31 AM   #11
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Apple wouldn't have risked it.
No Evidence.
Settled legally.
Move on.
Seriously.
Get over it.
TMay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 AM   #12
H2SO4
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
Apple wouldn't have risked it.
No Evidence.
Settled legally.
Move on.
Seriously.
Get over it.
Get over what? You've lost me.
H2SO4 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 04:48 AM   #13
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Get over what? You've lost me.
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.
TMay is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 04:50 AM   #14
H2SO4
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.
I was actually referring to the way you put your post. But cool it's covered now.

Last edited by H2SO4; Dec 18, 2012 at 04:55 AM.
H2SO4 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 05:21 AM   #15
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Glad the judge did not overrule a jury - the whole point of a jury is that it prevents any one person from having too much power.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 05:49 AM   #16
M-O
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
M-O is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:07 AM   #17
Technarchy
macrumors 601
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:12 AM   #18
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Jurors are selected by the attorneys representing both sides. Samsungs (grasping at straws) complaint is just sour grapes. Whether this was a fair trial or not is above your pay grade.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:19 AM   #19
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
What conflict of interest?

Samsung lost and was ordered to pay more than $1bn. In that situation it is quite natural that you grasp at the tiniest straws to get a one billion dollar decision against you overturned. Which is what they did. In reality, it is totally unreasonable to assume that a person would be influenced in a case against _Samsung_ by something that happened between him and _Seagate_ _19 years ago_.

Maybe you are a bit weird that way, but I don't spend any time thinking about things that happened 19 years ago.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:36 AM   #20
MonkeySee....
macrumors 68040
 
MonkeySee....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Good. **** you Samsung
__________________
If you’re busy making everything, how can you perfect anything? - Apple

Always keep the rhythm in your feet and a little party in your shoulders. - Phil Dunphy
MonkeySee.... is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:46 AM   #21
Aluminum213
macrumors 65816
 
Aluminum213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeySee.... View Post
Good. **** you Samsung
You must be so happy as an apple executive





Oh wait
Aluminum213 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 06:51 AM   #22
MonkeySee....
macrumors 68040
 
MonkeySee....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum213 View Post
You must be so happy as an apple executive





Oh wait
I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung.
__________________
If you’re busy making everything, how can you perfect anything? - Apple

Always keep the rhythm in your feet and a little party in your shoulders. - Phil Dunphy
MonkeySee.... is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 07:12 AM   #23
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Glad the judge did not overrule a jury - the whole point of a jury is that it prevents any one person from having too much power.
I'm pretty sure that's why Samsung filed the motion. Because they believed the foreman had too much power/didn't conduct themselves appropriately.

----------

Interesting what just happened in Europe re: Samsung v Apple

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/18/s...against-apple/
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 07:27 AM   #24
Yujenisis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Send a message via AIM to Yujenisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-O View Post
they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
Zing!
Yujenisis is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2012, 07:31 AM   #25
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yujenisis View Post
Zing!
Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nebraska again: Judge denies 16 year old girl abortion AhmedFaisal Politics, Religion, Social Issues 126 Oct 28, 2013 11:00 AM
UK Judge Who Chastised Apple Over Samsung 'Apology' Now Consulting as Patent Expert for Samsung MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 253 Mar 9, 2013 07:25 AM
Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 67 Jan 31, 2013 12:12 AM
UK Judge Is Forcing Apple To Publish On Its Website That Samsung Didn't Copy Apple Phokus iPad 1 Jul 18, 2012 04:05 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.

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

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