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

[MacRumors]

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.

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.

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

[iphone495]

What apocalypse? Oh right, Apple's destroying Samsung.

[jdegid]

I get accused of improperly conducting myself all the time

[SunnyRenegade33]

Nothing surprising here.

[DynaFXD]

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.

[iMikeT]

Originally Posted by jdegid

I get accused of improperly conducting myself all the time

Pants on or off?

[coder12]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Pants on or off?

Sometimes both at the same time!

[portishead]

Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.

[Negritude]

Originally Posted by portishead

Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.

What is there to say about an obviously self-serving statement on the part of Apple?

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by portishead

Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.

Innovate don't litigate?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Negritude

What is there to say about an obviously self-serving statement on the part of Apple?

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.

[markie]

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

[RichardI]

Originally Posted by jdegid

I get accused of improperly conducting myself all the time

Me too! And by someone a lot more scary than Samsung!!

Mwahahahahaha

[blackhand1001]

Originally Posted by Swift

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.

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]

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.

----------

Originally Posted by blackhand1001

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.

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/timworst...anding-patent/

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

----------

Originally Posted by portishead

Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.

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.

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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/timworst...anding-patent/

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.

[Avatarshark]

Apparently bygones aren't bygones anymore

[portishead]

Originally Posted by Swift

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.

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

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by portishead

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

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.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by portishead

Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.

Originally Posted by portishead

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

Apart of trying to flame bait, do you have any thing to say about the case?

[portishead]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Apart of trying to flame bait, do you have any thing to say about the case?

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.

----------

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

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

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by portishead

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

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.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by portishead

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

It's actually weird when you begin to create theoretical people.

[portishead]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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

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.

----------

Originally Posted by thekev

It's actually weird when you begin to create theoretical people.

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

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by portishead

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

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.

Originally Posted by portishead

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

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.