Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    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.
    [​IMG]
    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.
    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
     
  2. HMI macrumors 6502a

    HMI

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    #2
    And this was predictable when it was last reported.
     
  3. komodrone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
  4. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
  5. portishead macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Location:
    los angeles
    #5
    In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.
     
  6. Renzatic macrumors G3

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #6
    This is unfair and Apple is a terr...oh wait.
     
  7. TheMacBookPro macrumors 68020

    TheMacBookPro

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #7
    The truth hurts.

    And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.
     
  8. BlueParadox, Dec 18, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012

    BlueParadox macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #8
    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! :eek:
     
  9. BlueParadox, Dec 18, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  10. H2SO4 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. TMay macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Location:
    Carson City, NV
    #11
    Apple wouldn't have risked it.
    No Evidence.
    Settled legally.
    Move on.
    Seriously.
    Get over it.
     
  12. H2SO4 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #12
    Get over what? You've lost me.
     
  13. TMay macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Location:
    Carson City, NV
    #13
    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.
     
  14. H2SO4, Dec 18, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012

    H2SO4 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #14
    I was actually referring to the way you put your post. But cool it's covered now.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    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.
     
  16. M-O macrumors 6502a

    M-O

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #16
    they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.
     
  17. MacDav macrumors 65816

    MacDav

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    #18
    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. :cool:
     
  18. gnasher729 macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #19
    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.
     
  19. MonkeySee.... macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
  20. Aluminum213 macrumors 68030

    Aluminum213

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    #21
    You must be so happy as an apple executive





    Oh wait
     
  21. MonkeySee.... macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

    Just massively dislike Samsung. :)
     
  22. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #23
    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/samsung-drops-european-lawsuits-against-apple/
     
  23. Yujenisis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    #24
    Zing! :D
     
  24. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #25
    Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).
     

Share This Page