Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    CNET is reporting that Judge Lucy Koh will "consider the questions" of whether the jury foreman in the Apple v. Samsung case conducted himself improperly during the jury selection process.

    Jury foreman Velvin Hogan has been one of the more visible members of the jury, speaking with numerous media agencies about the case and the billion-dollar verdict awarded in the case.

    [​IMG]
    Though the jury trial was finished earlier this year, Apple and Samsung's courtroom drama does not look to be abating any time soon.

    Article Link: Judge Will "Consider" Questions on Jury Foreman in Samsung v. Apple Trial
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    JS82712

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #2
    give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #3
    "Substantial strategic relationship"

    The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #4
    That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

    Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #5
    stock is lowering......shake up in the ranks...now this decision will be thrown out cause Hogan liked talking. Karma is a bitch apple!
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    #6
    Since this guy went on National television I said this will bite Apple in the ass... just watch..
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #7
    samsung -> hire outsider -> outsider contacts foreman -> give him 10 mil to say he did his own research outside the case.
     
  8. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #8
    Seriously?

    Talk about tin foil hats.

    I won't give my opinion on the merits of the case. I will say that there was quite a bit that I find questionable about the foreman and how the jury deliberated.

    And if this were a criminal court case and you were the defendant - I don't believe anyone here would want a jury member who had any remote/tangential bias.

    A fair trial is a fair trial. And if Samsung (or Apple!) didn't get one - they are entitled to one.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    #9
    Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.
     
  10. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #10
  11. KeyDemo, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2012

    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    #11
  12. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #12
    The quote:

    Doesn't mean that they have any evidence. It's something that they are looking for, but they aren't accusing Hagen specifically. They are saying "this is the stuff we are looking for since this would defiantly prompt a mistrial.

    It's not proof of anything at all.
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    #13
  14. damir00, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    #14
    Are you freakin' kidding me? How did this guy get through the jury selection?!

    "Explaining a conceptual concept" that is material to the decision under deliberation is not the foreman's job.

    This may very well end up as going to another trial. Gah.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #15
    Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

    1993 was nearly 20 years ago. Nearly twice that time limit.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #16
    I think it's being argued (I'm not 100% sure) that his experience with patents and him having this "epiphany" on prior art based on those patents is questionable. Not only is it being argued he was wrong with his assessment but that he then "taught" the jurors this incorrect analogy.

    So I believe when they say he presented evidence - it's was his "model" for determining prior art which was irrelevant to the case, etc.

    Someone can definitely correct me as I am simplifying it I am sure. And from memory ;)
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #17
    No matter what leadership changes occur, being sued into bankruptcy isn't something you forget, particularly if you get a chance to rake that same company over years later.
     
  18. marksman, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2012

    macrumors 603

    marksman

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    #18
    Lol yes he should have known seagate and Samsung had a strategic partnership. Did they ask jurors if they had any connection, specifically, to any and all strategic partners of Samsung?

    ----------

    He didn't break the rules. You are one of those who don't understand how juries work.

    ----------

    So you think Samsung and seagate are the same company?

    ----------

    You are right it is not his job. As a member of the jury though he certainly can bring it up. Again another person who does not understand how jurys work. They are not NFL replay officials. They take the presented evidence and then discuss it with each other. There is nothing about the jury process that keeps jurors from including their own insights and experiences into the discussion. In fact that is an important part of it.

    It is also why high sides and the judge can remove people during selection. If juries worked like some of you mistakenly think they would call the first twelve people and that would be that.

    Unless the foreman lied during jury questioning nothing will come of this. It was partly up to the judge and mostly Samsung to ask the right questions.

    Bad lawyers are bad at selecting juries. We have never seen anything to indicate Samsung has competent attornies.

    ----------

    It is gobsmacking that people think juries are not allowed to make arguments based on such things. This particular case has demonstrated to me that a significant percentage of people are clueless how our jury system works or what jury deliberation is.

    ----------

    Yeah not going on tv is not a requirement of being a juror. Again unless he actually lied there is nothing here. The judge is covering their bases for appeal so they are not overturned. People think that there are some strict rules for jury deliberation are simply wrong.
     
  19. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #19
    You're the expert on everything is seems. Publishing. Patents. Law. Jury selection. Verdicts. etc. There doesn't seem to be a topic you don't try and school others on.

    Fact is - it's just your opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's. Quite condescending however.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    flameproof

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #20
    It's what I thought too. It will make Apple look really bad. And it's not about $1.1b case against Samsung, that won't stand in a patent court anyway and is most likely to be revoked in the next sequel - which will come, and which will be by an export court and not be a jury trial.

    One point that people seems to miss often, Apple litigates a lot, but they are really unsuccessful with it from their track record.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    iGrip

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    #21
    Whether he conducted himself improperly or not, Samsung is still 100% guilty of ripping off Apple. And besides, he didn't do noting wrong anyways.
     
  22. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #22
    In your opinion. But that hardly matters as it's up to the courts.
     
  23. Peppa, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    #23
    I agree...I read somewhere that the juror had had previous headaches with patenting and the patent office. The other jurors took his words as expertise and so he may have influenced the jury one way or another based on information outside the courtroom. That would not be right.

    Whether there is foul play or not, it's worth looking into...which is what the judge is doing. So, good.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    NY
    #24
    Them and every other court in the world and millions of Samsung costumers...etc.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    flameproof

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #25
    Apple loosing most cases though.
     

Share This Page