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

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    Messages:
    7,175
    #1
    [​IMG]


    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.

    [​IMG]
    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
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    #2
    What apocalypse? Oh right, Apple's destroying Samsung.
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    #3
    I get accused of improperly conducting myself all the time
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    #4
    Nothing surprising here.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,300
    Location:
    California
    #6

    Pants on or off?
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    coder12

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    507
    #7
    Sometimes both at the same time!
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,114
    Location:
    los angeles
    #8
    Curious to see what the Samsung apologists have to say about this.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    262
    #9
    What is there to say about an obviously self-serving statement on the part of Apple?
     
  10. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    12,240
    #10
    Innovate don't litigate?
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    918
    #12
    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
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    RichardI

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    #13
    Me too! And by someone a lot more scary than Samsung!! :D;)

    Mwahahahahaha
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,579
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #15
    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.

    ----------

    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/timwors...-uspto-invalidates-the-rubber-banding-patent/

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

    ----------

    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.
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,360
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    The Digital Frontier
    #17
    Apparently bygones aren't bygones anymore
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,114
    Location:
    los angeles
    #18
    the samsung fanboys don't understand when you use logic.
     
  19. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    5,924
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #20
    Apart of trying to flame bait, do you have any thing to say about the case?
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,114
    Location:
    los angeles
    #21
    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.

    ----------

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

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,154
    #23
    It's actually weird when you begin to create theoretical people.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,114
    Location:
    los angeles
    #24
    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.

    ----------

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

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #25
    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.

    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.
     

Share This Page