Why is none of this objective in determining guilty or not? I guess I'm wondering why Samsung is guilty in one country but not the other of the same accusations.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Case Speaks to Rationale for Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The concept looks slightly similar but the design is completely different. Again, just have to say I wasn't actually being serious with my post; just trying to boost the mood in this thread.
Do we agree that the Small Form Factor concept isn't Apple's to begin with ? Even if you want to argue that the Power Mac G4 Cube was theoretically the first one, on the PC side, it's actually the Shuttle SV24 that launched the trend of SFF, spawning the whole Mini/Nano/Pico ITX form factor motherboards and cases and the OEM flavors of such small PCs.
The Shuttle SV24 had the added benefit of being made of aluminum rather than polycarbonate and as such didn't have the bad habit of cracking like the G4 Cube had.
----------
You don't do that by posting flamebait usually. It's also quite against the rules to do so (posting something incendiary to incite others to post) not to mention quite contrary to netiquette.
Sure it does! It's a blatant copy... from the bottom. You know, the part that never shows and no one ever really bothers to look at ?
Clearly Samsung is infringing on Steve Jobs vision of what a box should look like on the bottom
If the courts reverse the decision then many will say 'the justice system is SO unfair".
Which I think Apple might have killed themselves by adding the Galaxy Note II and GSIII to the infringement case.
What's that random assortment of semi-related names supposed to mean? BTW, most consumers don't even know about this, and certainly aren't going to stop buying Apple products because of this. It's only us nerds and semi-nerds that care.
jW
There is no such thing as Judy incompetence and anyone claiming anything the jury forman said will lead to a succesful appeal is clueless.
This thread scares me in that so many people are completely clueless how our justice system works and more importantly what a jury does and how jury deliberation works.
Lots of problems with the us justice system but the jury system is not one of them. The nature of the system protects it.
As for stifling jurors from publically talking about decisions I have to assume you had a mental lapse when suggesting that.
----------
Everything you said is nonsense.
So they did not take it into account, the judge did not want them to take it into account and the guy didn't remember taking it into account and you are crying foul.
If they did what the judge requested then the rest is irrelevant. By the way juries have massive amounts of leeway. Willfulness is going to play a process in anyone's internal debate regardless of claims or instructions.
Lol you don't actually have any idea how the nine jurors reached their collective decision. It is much more likely a juror is misspeaking after the fact and without the assistance of the actual documents and other jurors.
It is funny to me that people and even worse lawyers think jury deliberations are somehow subjected to extreme scrutiny when it comes to an appeal.
There is no transcript of the jury deliberations, and it is that way for a reason.
People and lawyers are making all kinds of baseless wild arse assumptions.
By the way a juror has no responsibility as far as I know to share an accurate account of deliberations unless they choose to, whether it be intentional or not.
Since all the wannabe experts want to make hay about the not being used on the same processor I will say it is likely just a technically unsavy answer and provides no evidence they did not judge prior art properly.
The jury holds no responsibility to share with Internet forum or law sites how or why they decided that the prior art was not valid. That is not how the jury system works. If the foreman chooses to say they decided it based on the phases of moon it does not make it true or relevant.
----------
They are given instructions not rules
----------
You mean Samsung failed to properly make their case on prior art. The burden was on samsungs lawyers to provide that evidence not the jury.
On the contrary, judges can (and do) overturn jury verdicts.
Here's a recent example:
---
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 allows a court to disregard the jury's verdict and either order a new trial or direct the entry of a judgment contrary to the verdict of the jury if the other party is entitled to such a verdict as a matter of law.
This rule gives a court the power to set aside a jury verdict either immediately after it is returned or upon request within 28 days after the verdict is returned. This happens sometimes if a jury returns a verdict that is clearly against the weight of the evidence and should never have been returned. This might happen if a jury is prejudiced against one party or another or makes a mistake in its fact finding conclusions and brings back a verdict that is not supported by the evidence. The court has the authority to disregard the verdict and direct the entry of judgment for the other party notwithstanding the verdict.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 allows the court to set aside the verdict and judgment and either order a new trial or alter or amend part of the verdict/judgment. The court has this authority if it believes such action is warranted even if none of the parties asks it to do so.
This rule permits alteration or amendment of a judgment as opposed to the grant of an entirely new trial. One example of an alteration or amendment of a verdict/judgment is that a court may reduce or increase the amount of damages a jury awards. This is called remititur and additur, repectively. If a jury awards damages in so excessive an amount that it is clear the the jury was prejudiced or mistaken, the court may lower the amount after the jury verdict is in.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 also permits the court to relieve a party from the effects of a verdict/judgment under these circumstances:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_a_civi...rn_a_jury_verdict_for_defendant#ixzz25K86011n
Last edited:
Of course they did, Judge Grewal prevented a lot of their prior art evidence from being allowed. So much so, it even lead to a media leak of said evidence.
----------
What makes that distinction exactly ? Any legal definitions you'd like to share with us ?
How can you explain that then:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/
You have to understand. Marksman is the authority and FINAL word on everything when it comes to MacRumors. I don't say that as an insult. I say that because I sincerely believes he is. He believes he knows better and more than anyone else. And if you continue to be contrary - he'll put you on ignore.
round 1 - Apple. rounds 2 to 20 - who knows?
But how about for juries not following the instructions?
This verdict is just the first skirmish in what will be a long-running soap opera.
...and the final outcome could be quite the opposite of this first, apparently flawed, verdict.
But how about for juries not following the instructions?
This verdict is just the first skirmish in what will be a long-running soap opera.
...and the final outcome could be quite the opposite of this first, apparently flawed, verdict.
Last edited:
I'd argue that Apple's goal is to keep things off the market as long as possible. If that is what happens, it's clearly in their favor regardless of final verdicts. None of the bonds have been terribly substantial.
But everything is still on the market, and the phones that could be banned are mostly older phones - so even if the judge ignores the flawed verdict and bans the older phones, it won't have much effect on the competitive landscape.
I was thinking more on previously requested injunctions. The goal seems to be one of making the market extremely hostile to competitors through potential liabilities. Even if they're granted a trash patent, it takes a lot of resources to get such a thing invalidated. Do you think Apple's goal was something different?
Sense of humour
My heart goes out to you zin, some people just don't have a sense of humour
Why can't someone try to lighten the mood, I spotted the joke straight away and can't believe people thought he was serious.
Just because you don't understand the concept of irony doesn't mean he's trying to incite a riot
My heart goes out to you zin, some people just don't have a sense of humour
Why can't someone try to lighten the mood, I spotted the joke straight away and can't believe people thought he was serious.
Just because you don't understand the concept of irony doesn't mean he's trying to incite a riot
Neither you do, so why you are so confident the jury's decision was correct? Unless you take it acritically because that's how the system works, or it happens to be a sentence you like and don't care about the rest.
Most professionals agree that the issue was too complicated to be decided so fast even by people deep into the matter. On top on that you add the declarations of the foreman which suggest indeed some corners have been cut to reach the decision... it's only logical that most come to the conclusion that the sentence might have weak points which could get it overturned on appeal. Or not, we'll see.
In any case I'd wait before "lol" ling.
So much so that the law has already been changed in the US to give the defendants a choice to have to face a jury for these types of case. Unfortunately for Samsung, the law goes into effect only on the 16th of September of this year.
Do Apple-haters go to visit and post in Apple product forums simply because they like to spread hate, because they are jealous of the cool Apple products they don't (or can't) own, or because there's not one damn thing of interest going on in forums that deal with the products that they do own?
Or, maybe they come here just to see the latest innovativeness and awesomeness so they know what their lesser products will look like in a few months?
Mark
Or, maybe they come here just to see the latest innovativeness and awesomeness so they know what their lesser products will look like in a few months?
Mark