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?
----------
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.
He didn't break the rules. You are one of those who don't understand how juries work.
----------
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.
So you think Samsung and seagate are the same company?
----------
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.
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.
----------
Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.
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.
----------
Since this guy went on National television I said this will bite Apple in the ass... just watch..
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.