decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:35 AM EDT

The day the jury in Apple v. Samsung announced its verdict, I told you that it was preposterous, and then, when the jurors first began to speak to the media, I told you that I didn't think the verdict could stand. Now that we have Samsung's Rule 50 and 59 motion asking the court for judgment as a matter of law, retrial, and/or remittitur, especially now with all the exhibits in support, we see why that is so.

Exhibits beyond number, and I have them all for you. One filing alone, for example, has over 100 exhibits. But the one that took my breath away is this one -- a large excerpt of the voir dire, or jury selection process, Exhibit 1 [PDF] attached to the John Pierce Declaration in Support of Samsung's motion. And what we see is the foreman being asked if he is chosen for a jury whether he will set aside all he knew of patent law from his own experience and just follow the court's instructions and judge based solely on evidence admitted at trial. He answers yes. That, of course, is exactly what he did not do, judging from interviews he and another juror gave to the media.

So aside from all the issues Samsung highlighted in the publicly available version of the motion as to things mishandled by the court and the jury, including the jury's incredibly unsustainable math, we now see one of the pieces in support of Samsung's redacted section, which is now obviously claiming juror misconduct. In the previous article, I wrote that I strongly suspected it, based on the cases cited. But now we have a smoking gun, so to speak.

Here's a segment of the voir dire of the prospective jurors, one of whom ended up foreman, with the judge asking the questions -- sorry it's in all caps, but that's how the document is:

THE COURT: okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr. Hogan.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one for that matter.

THE COURT: What was his -- what was the employee's claim?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was a dispute over the software that we had developed, whether it belonged to the company or to him, and I had documents that showed it belonged to the company. Ultimately, as I said, it would -- we settled out of court and it was dismissed.

THE COURT: All right. Anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't believe so.

THE COURT: Okay. Was there any dispute -- was there any dispute as to who had created and invented the technology, or was it largely who had ownership of it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was strictly who had ownership of it, and ultimately it was established that the company did have ownership of it, although -- and I still do -- although the company is not in business any longer.

THE COURT: I see. But was there a sort of dispute as to who had created or invented the technology as part of that ownership question?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, there was.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: But like I said, we settled that -- because of documentation I had, we were able to settle it out of court and then we went back to court one last time for the dismissal paperwork.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.... So I want to make sure that both Mr. Hogan, and Ms. Rougieri, that you would apply the law as I instruct you and not based on your understanding of the law based on your own cases. Is that correct, Mr. Hogan?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.....

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your instructions.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go, I think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr. Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. let's please start with Ms. Halim.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued when I was at weitek, also I.C. Design. Another one was at silicon graphics.

THE COURT: And it was also on I.C. Design?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, right.

THE COURT: Okay. Were patents issued?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: And you were the inventor on both?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience -- basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you....

THE COURT: Okay. And do you have any patent applications pending now?.... Let's go to Mr. Hogan. You had some?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Excuse me. In 2002, I filed for a patent in video compression software, and in 2008, the patent was issued to me. And in 2008 I filed a follow-on patent in more detail and that is currently pending.

THE COURT: I see. Okay. All right....

THE COURT: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr. Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during the trial?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr. Tepman?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think so, too.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Now, was anyone else going to answer yes to the question of have you ever had an idea taken from you? The record should reflect no hands have been raised. Now, the next question, have you ever been accused of taking an idea from someone else? Would you please raise your hand? All right. Let's go to Mr. Hogan. Would you please pass the microphone, Mr. Tepman? Thank you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: As I had stated earlier, that was -- in 2008, that was the accusation against me before the patent was issued. But as I said, that case ultimately was dropped in my favor.

THE COURT: Now, when the programmer sued you, was that programmer also a co-inventor on the patent?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No....

THE COURT: No. I see.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The patent was issued totally -- exclusively in my name.

THE COURT: I see.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: And I had filed for that patent prior to his joining the effort to work for it. That was part of my documentation showing that it was mine.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me ask, if you have strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws, would you raise your hand, please? The record should reflect that no hands have been raised....

As you can see, more than just the foreman promised to follow the law and not use what they knew from their own cases, but just follow the judge's instructions.

Also, be aware that when jurors answer questions in voir dire, the lawyers on both sides do check. Sometimes they don't have time to fully check someone's answers prior to the jury being formed. It all goes quite quickly, but that doesn't mean the lawyers stop checking out what the jurors say. As you saw in the previous article, if a prospective juror answers questions in a way that later proves to be untrue, that can be an issue. Similarly, if they are asked a question and fail to mention something pertinent, that can be a problem too. For example, if the judge asks if anyone has ever been involved in any litigation, and a juror doesn't mention one and it turns out to be relevant topically, that could be a problem. And if a juror introduces evidence that was not presented at trial, and that piece is what turns the tide and results in a verdict, that's a problem too.

And that's exactly why the judge asks the questions and makes clear to the jury pool what the rules of the road are going to be, so they can tell the judge that they can't follow just the law, or whatever, and then they can be released and won't serve on the jury.

I say these things could be a problem, because sometimes they happen but it doesn't end up mattering. The tendency is for jury verdicts to stand, even if there is a problem. That's because the system doesn't want jurors harrassed, and because you do want there to be a reliable The End to a trial. I saw one case where a juror was drunk during deliberations in a criminal trial, and even that wasn't enough to alter the outcome. But there are for sure cases where misconduct resulted in overturning a verdict or sending the case back for a new trial. We'll wait and see which this turns out to be. [Update: A Groklaw member, SLi, has posted a comment with a list of some of the relevant cases Samsung is listing in its motion, with a brief snippet of each to show what the case was about.]

Here are all of the PDFs filed from docket numbers 1979-1993. That, of course, includes the Samsung and Apple motions that we highlighted in the previous article, but now you have all the supporting documents as well. It's taken a while just to collect them, and I haven't yet had a chance to read them all, so we can do that together. Some of them are large chunks of transcripts from the trial, by the way, so we now get an advance peek at that event.

Keep in mind that when you see a lawyer declaration, it generally will be a list of exhibits, explaining what each one is. For example, the Declaration of B. Dylan Proctor, attached to #1988, is a list of exhibits, and so is the Declaration of Jason Bartlett, attached to #1983.

With so many documents at once, it's very unlikely that I made no mistakes, so do sing out if you see something that isn't perfectly aligned. As I went along and realized what a whale of a project this is, I began to name the PDFs in ways that may save you downloading. For example, if the exhibit is sealed or manually filed, I included that in the name, so if you mouse over the link, you can see that. And if it's a patent, I listed that too. I didn't do that for all of them, so if you should avoid patents, be aware of this thicket and look at the lawyer declarations for guidance.

If someone has the ambition to make a list of what everything is in HTML, I'll gladly post it as a map for everyone to follow. That will surely help us keep track of what everything is.

The documents:

1979 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Docket Text: Administrative Motion to File Under Seal [1907], [1911], [1912] filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Cyndi Wheeler in Support of Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # (2) Exhibit 1, # (3) Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1980 Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Docket Text: Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # ( 1) Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # ( 2) Declaration of Christopher Kelley in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Exhibit 87, # ( 3) Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Christopher Kelley in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Exhibit 87, # ( 4) Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Christopher Kelley in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Exhibit 87, # ( 5) Declaration of Declaration of Christopher Kelley in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Exhibit FF, # ( 6) Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Christopher Kelley in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Exhibit FF, # ( 7) Declaration of Melissa Dalziel, # (8) Exhibit A to Declaration of Melissa Dalziel, # (9) Exhibit B to Declaration of Melissa Dalziel, # (10) Exhibit C to Declaration of Melissa Dalziel)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1981 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Brief
Docket Text: Brief re [1965] Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Apple's Brief Regarding Non-Jury Claims Including Waiver, Equitable Estoppel, Unclean Hands, and Unfair Competition filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # ( 1) Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion on Non-Jury Claims Including Waiver, Equitable Estoppel, Unclean Hands, and Unfair Competition)(Related document(s)[1965]) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1982 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Docket Text: Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Public Version Apples Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements, # (2) Declaration Musika Declaration, # (3) Exhibit 1, # (4) Exhibit 2, # (5) Exhibit 3, # (6) Exhibit 4, # (7) Exhibit 5, # (8) Exhibit 6, # (9) Exhibit 7, # (10) Exhibit 8, # (11) Exhibit 9, # (12) Exhibit 10, # (13) Exhibit 11, # (14) Exhibit 12, # (15) Exhibit 13, # (16) Exhibit 14, # (17) Exhibit 15, # (18) Exhibit 16, # (19) Exhibit 17, # (20) Exhibit 18, # (21) Exhibit 19, # (22) Exhibit 20, # (23) Exhibit 21, # (24) Exhibit 22, # (25) Exhibit 23, # (26) Exhibit 24, # (27) Exhibit 25, # (28) Exhibit 26, # (29) Exhibit 27, # (30) Exhibit 28, # (31) Exhibit 29, # (32) Exhibit 30, # (33) Exhibit 31, # (34) Exhibit 32, # (35) Exhibit 33, # (36) Exhibit 34, # (37) Exhibit 35, # (38) Exhibit 36, # (39) Exhibit 37, # (40) Exhibit 38, # (41) Exhibit 39, # (42) Exhibit 40, # (43) Exhibit 41, # (44) Exhibit 42, # (45) Exhibit 43, # (46) Exhibit 44, # (47) Exhibit 45, # (48) Exhibit 46, # (49) Exhibit 47, # (50) Exhibit 48, # (51) Exhibit 49, # (52) Exhibit 50, # (53) Exhibit 51, # (54) Exhibit 52, # (55) Exhibit 53, # (56) Exhibit 54, # (57) Exhibit 55, # (58) Exhibit 56, # (59) Exhibit 57, # (60) Exhibit 58, # (61) Exhibit 59, # (62) Exhibit 60, # (63) Exhibit 61, # (64) Exhibit 62, # (65) Exhibit 63, # (66) Exhibit 64, # (67) Exhibit 65, # (68) Exhibit 66, # (69) Exhibit 67, # (70) Exhibit 68, # (71) Declaration Robinson Declaration, # (72) Exhibit 1, # (73) Exhibit 2, # (74) Exhibit 3, # (75) Exhibit 4, # (76) Exhibit 5, # (77) Exhibit 6, # (78) Exhibit 7, # (79) Exhibit 8, # (80) Exhibit 9, # (81) Exhibit 10, # (82) Exhibit 11, # (83) Exhibit 12, # (84) Exhibit 13, # (85) Exhibit 14, # (86) Exhibit 15, # (87) Exhibit 16, # (88) Exhibit 17, # (89) Exhibit 18, # (90) Exhibit 19, # (91) Exhibit 20, # (92) Exhibit 21, # (93) Exhibit 22, # (94) Exhibit 23, # (95) Exhibit 24, # (96) Exhibit 25, # (97) Exhibit 26, # (98) Exhibit 27, # (99) Exhibit 28, # (100) Exhibit 29, # (101) Exhibit 30, # (102) Exhibit 31, # (103) Exhibit 32 Notice of Manual Filing, # (104) Exhibit 33 Notice of Manual Filing, # (105) Exhibit 34, # (106) Exhibit 35, # (107) Exhibit 36, # (108) Exhibit 37, # (109) Exhibit 38, # (110) Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1983 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Jason Bartlett in Support of [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Bartlett Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Damages Enhancement filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4-1, # (5) Exhibit 4-2, # (6) Exhibit 4-3, # (7) Exhibit 4-4, # (8) Exhibit 4-5, # (9) Exhibit 5, # (10) Exhibit 6, # (11) Exhibit 7, # (12) Exhibit 8, # (13) Exhibit 9)(Related document(s)[1982]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1984 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Christopher Crouse in Support of [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Crouse Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for Permanent Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s)[1982]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1985 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Philip Schiller in Support of [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Schiller Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for Permanent Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 Notice of Manual Filing, # (2) Attachment 1, # (3) Attachment 2, # (4) Attachment 3, # (5) Attachment 4, # (6) Attachment 5, # (7) Attachment 6, # (8) Attachment 7)(Related document(s)[1982]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1986 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Russell Winer in Support of [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Winer Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s)[1982]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1987 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Proposed Order
Docket Text: Proposed Order re [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction and Damages Enhancement by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1988 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Brief
Docket Text: Brief re [1965] Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Samsung's Motion On Non-Jury Claims, Including Indefiniteness filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of B. Dylan Proctor, # (2) Exhibit 1, # (3) Exhibit 2, # (4) Exhibit 3, # (5) Exhibit 4, # (6) Exhibit 5, # (7) Exhibit 6, # (8) Exhibit 7, # (9) Exhibit 8, # (10) Exhibit 9, # (11) Exhibit 10, # (12) Exhibit 11, # (13) Exhibit 12, # (14) Exhibit 13, # (15) Exhibit 14, # (16) Exhibit 15, # (17) Exhibit 16, # (18) Exhibit 17, # (19) Exhibit 18, # (20) Exhibit 19, # (21) Proposed Order)(Related document(s)[1965]) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1989 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
Docket Text: MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Apple's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed), New Trial, and Amended Judgment [FRCP 50, 59] filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 11/9/2012. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration Kim Declaration, # (2) Exhibit A, # (3) Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1990 - Filed & Entered: 09/21/2012
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Docket Text: Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Estrich ISO Admin. Mot.[Restricted], # (2) Proposed Order Granting Admin. Mot., # (3) Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motions, # (4) Declaration of Susan Estrich ISO Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion, # (5) Exhibit A to Estrich, # (6) Exhibit B to Estrich, # (7) Exhibit C to Estrich, # (8) Exhibit D to Estrich, # (9) Exhibit E to Estrich, # (10) Exhibit F to Estrich, # (11) Exhibit G to Estrich, # (12) Exhibit H to Estrich, # (13) Exhibit I to Estrich, # (14) Exhibit J to Estrich, # (15) Exhibit K to Estrich, # (16) Exhibit L to Estrich, # (17) Exhibit M to Estrich, # (18) Exhibit N to Estrich, # (19) Exhibit O to Estrich, # (20) Declaration of Michael Wagner, # (21) Exhibit A to Wagner, # (22) Exhibit B to Wagner, # (23) Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motions)(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1991 - Filed: 09/21/2012
Entered: 09/22/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of John Pierce in Support of [1990] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion Declaration of John Pierce in Support of Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 to Pierce, # (2) Exhibit 2 to Pierce, # (3) Exhibit 3 to Pierce, # (4) Exhibit 4 to Pierce, # (5) Exhibit 5 to Pierce, # (6) Exhibit 6 to Pierce, # (7) Exhibit 7 to Pierce, # (8) Exhibit 8 to Pierce, # (9) Exhibit 9 to Pierce, # (10) Exhibit 10 to Pierce, # (11) Exhibit 11 to Pierce, # (12) Exhibit 12 to Pierce, # (13) Exhibit 13 to Pierce, # (14) Exhibit 14 to Pierce, # (15) Exhibit 15 to Pierce, # (16) Exhibit 16 to Pierce, # (17) Exhibit 17 to Pierce, # (18) Exhibit 18 to Pierce, # (19) Exhibit 19 to Pierce, # (20) Exhibit 20 to Pierce, # (21) Exhibit 21 to Pierce, # (22) Exhibit 22 to Pierce, # (23) Exhibit 23 to Pierce, # (24) Exhibit 24 to Pierce, # (25) Exhibit 25 to Pierce, # (26) Exhibit 26 to Pierce, # (27) Exhibit 27 to Pierce, # (28) Exhibit 28 to Pierce, # (29) Exhibit 29 to Pierce, # (30) Exhibit 30 to Pierce, # (31) Exhibit 31 to Pierce, # (32) Exhibit 32 to Pierce, # (33) Exhibit 33 to Pierce, # (34) Exhibit 34 to Pierce, # (35) Exhibit 35 to Pierce, # (36) Exhibit 36 to Pierce, # (37) Exhibit 37 to Pierce, # (38) Exhibit 38 to Pierce, # (39) Exhibit 39 to Pierce, # (40) Exhibit 40 to Pierce, # (41) Exhibit 41 to Pierce, # (42) Exhibit 42 to Pierce, # (43) Exhibit 43 to Pierce, # (44) Exhibit 44 to Pierce, # (45) Exhibit 45 to Pierce, # (46) Exhibit 46 to Pierce, # (47) Exhibit 47 to Pierce, # (48) Notice of Manual Filing)(Related document(s)[1990]) (Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1992 - Filed & Entered: 09/22/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Jason Bartlett in Support of [1982] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[1983]. filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4-1, # (5) Exhibit 4-2, # (6) Exhibit 4-3, # (7) Exhibit 4-4, # (8) Exhibit 4-5, # (9) Exhibit 5, # (10) Exhibit 6, # (11) Exhibit 7, # (12) Exhibit 8, # (13) Exhibit 9)(Related document(s)[1982]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/22/2012)

1993 - Filed & Entered: 09/22/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of John Pierce in Support of [1990] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion, [1991] Declaration in Support,,,,,,, Corrected Declaration of John Pierce in Support of Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 48 to Pierce, # (2) Exhibit 49 to Pierce)(Related document(s)[1990], [1991]) (Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 9/22/2012)


  


Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES document thread
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:18 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT
Some interesting quotes:
Claim 50 uses such a term of degree, requiring that the first and second "boxes of content" be "substantially centered" on the touch-screen display. JX 1046.49 (emphasis added.) [...] There are no tests, parameters, or other criteria for determining whether such a box is or is not "substantially centered."
Indeed, the indefiniteness of the asserted patents is evident from the patents themselves (JX1040, JX1041, JX1042, JX1043) patents that the Court itself has previously observed are inconsistent and sloppy. 7/24/12 Hearing Tr. at 20:19-21:4 ("[W]ith several of these design patents, there's unfortunate inconsistency or sloppiness in how it's done. . . . What am I supposed to make of this other than, you know, there may have been some unfortunate prosecution here?"). The views of the D‘889 patent make it impossible to know which way the device should be oriented and where certain environmental features should go.
And so on... in exhibit 1988. Essentially, Samsung is picking apart Apple's patent applications, for any items that are not consistent with patent application rules (using broken/solid/thin/dotted lines consistently, claim language, etc.). ~cd

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think this Judge will push on through regardless.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1979-1993 -- Ah, to be young again! (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:50 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this have repercussions on the jury foreman
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT
In the UK there have been cases when a member of the jury has been slightly less than honest about things applicable to a trial before being sworn in. When this is found out (either during or after the trial) the dishonest juror normally ends up standing in front of the beaks answering some very pointed questions. More often or not the juror ends up being sent down for a month or more in order to reflect on the error of their ways; this is normally treated as Contempt of Court, but I remember one particularly bad case in which the jury member was sent down for Perjury. Either way the dishonest juror ends up with a criminal record and a heavy fine, and a mistrial is declared so everything has to start over.

My question is - in the US legal system could the jury foreman face similar sanctions? If so then he might come to regret his motor-mouth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation thread on Apple's reply
Authored by: pem on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT
"Obviously, he's not biased"

"No, he didn't act as an expert witness"

"Even if he did, Samsung's cited cases don't show there is any
remedy."

???

Should be fun to watch the dance, as long as you're in the right frame of mind.
Otherwise, might be very angry-making.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seagate vs Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
I think the core of the story lies in this case.
Was it possible that people from Samsung were witnesses?
I didn't see this mentioned in voir dire at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Respecting juries.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT
This whole situation has had me thinking about juries.

I have been through voir dire several times, but never been
put on a jury. I suspect that I never will because I
wouldn't want to be on a jury with a judge who would be
willing to have me for a juror. Ok seriously I don't think I
will ever bew on a jury because of so many things that would
make each side wary of me. I think ( seriously ) that the
smartest lawyer is the one who could trick the other lawyer
into getting rid of me.

For the most part juries have a hard thankless job, where
they put in a lot of hours, for very little pay under many
uncomfortable conditions. They deserve our respect and
gratitude, but the events in this trial caused me to think a
bit.

Certainly a real jury, a legitimate jury deserves our
respect and gratitude, but does a false one? Don't parties
in a civil or criminal matter deserve to be heard by real
juries?

Certainly all due respect should be given a real jury, but
shouldn't it be a responsibility of the court to validate
that the jury was a real jury. If questions arise shouldn't
the court seriously investigate those questions in any way
then can?

I'm thinking of something similar to double jeopardy, where
a person can be tried a second time if they bribed the judge
or took jurors family members hostage. The argument there is
that jeopardy never attached, b ecause the defendent was
never actually in jeopardy.

I've heard of drunk jurors and sleeping jurors and all sorts
of other stupidities, and it really bothers me to let those
verdicts stand.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: PolR on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
From the article:
THE COURT: okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

Let's see. On the first row, who would raise their hand to that question? All right. let's go to Mr. Hogan.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one for that matter.

From the table of authorities:
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan
Where does this case fit with the foreman answers? I don't find it there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reminds me of a Jury I was on
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT
In the early 90s I was on a Jury in Las Vegas where a woman flipped her car and
blamed it on a truck pulling in front of her. All witnesses testified that the
truck was at least 2 car lengths ahead of her and never came closer. But the
jury foreman convinced everyone that the truck (commercially owned) was at least
10% responsible and since the damages (of no documented or visible injuries)
where worth $300,000 dollars, the verdict should be for $30,000. I still am
outraged at this manipulation by the jury foreman to this day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a very interesting early 'iPAD'. from LG, 2001
Authored by: john-from-ct on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT
The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week. The device was demonstrated running on the latest version of the Linux kernel, 2.4. First unveiled in January, the iPAD is aimed at home users wanting Internet access and multimedia thrills without all the bells and whistles of a conventional PC. from: Clicky to news article.

---
Just another greybeard geek!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think formally sanctioning the juror is in the cases. Only public embarrassment-n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the jury's decision
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
No, really. Please. Get over yourselves.

Remember the Oracle v. Google trial? That jury also made a number of questionable statements post-judgement. One of the most damning, that mysteriously nobody seems to have picked up on, was a juror's opinion that "more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google." [1]

Uhhh, excuse me? "Limits on openness"?!? Was "limits on openness" ever supposed to be a consideration? Was it ever mentioned in the Judge's instructions that they should consider "limits on openness"? Was "limits on openness" a matter of fact to be decided by the jury? Was it on the jury form? Is Android even "open" outside of Google's propaganda?!? [2]

Of course, that's not the only indication they didn't "get the issues". Remember, this jury was told to assume APIs were copyrightable and "was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use"[3]! Wholesale copying is fair use?! Not to mention the fact that they thought the line-for-line duplication of rangeCheck was not copying, which even the Judge had to overturn.

Where was the outrage back then? Oh, they returned a decision you all agreed with, so that's just fine and dandy!

Compared to that jury, this Velvin Hogan fella comes off as downright reasonable. About the only thing he may have been wrong about is that Apple didn't infringe Samsung's '460 patent, and personally I think he was wrong insofar as the Doctrine of Equivalents applies. That's worth, what, a few million in damages to Samsung? I can't find any statements from him as to dispensing advice to fellow jurors about patent law... only opinions about the validity and infringement of the patents -- as the court asked him to.

[1] https ://twi tter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205371711233851392
[2] Open source is not exactly "open". See: SkyHook lawsuit, Acer/Aliyun. Keep in mind non-Google-approved forks of AOSP are not officially and legally, in the trademark sense, "Android". Android is, ironically, about as "open" as Java is.
[3] https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Mr. Hogan post here anonymously?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT
After reading most of the comments to this article it got me thinking - it would
make sense, wouldn't it? According to reports isn't he an IT guy, with an
apparent ego? After the end of trial if he Googled his name surely he would
have found this site, if he wasn't aware of it already. I think it would be
human nature (for many humans) to want to clear their name, to write things
defending that "dear ol' Hogan guy."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT
From the Court ... "basically you obviously will bring your life
experience to your role as a juror"

I have heard nothing in the statements from the other jurors other
than descriptions of what the Court itself had already acknowledged
as to what resources this juror had to offer his potential fellow jurists.

I have heard nothing at all about what particular instruction(s) from
the court which he and/or the jury disregarded.

The court appears to fully expect him; regardless, to help his fellow
jurors understand the details of the various infrastructures he had
personal knowledge about.

The verbiage that follows, " but would you be able to set that aside,
your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based
solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted
during the trial?", was obviously not meant to cancel this Court
acknowledged function within the jury. It's unfortunate the the court
chose the words "previous experience" instead of something like
"previous outcome". The Courts choice of words enables abusers of
language to redefine the statement for their own purposes; as they
most certainly have.

The final statement of the Court to this juror was as to whether the
(eventual foreman) would follow the Courts instructions. Which
instructions, specifically, where ignored? What specifically did he do
with his fellow jurors that was not part of "bring your life experience
to your role as a juror"?

Not grokin' your Groking

You would have intentionally ignore the contextual meaning of the
word "experience" to say that the foreman could use NOTHING from
his previous experience to inform his role in the jury.

Both sides had the opportunity to give the guy a no go. It didn't
happen. Lets move on here

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, or other helpful souls, what's with the senior partner of the firm signing off transcripts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT
That is, both Apple and Samsung have a filing with a *long* list of trial
excerpts, which end with the senior partner of the respective law firms signing
off that the attached are true and correct copies, and saying he is prepared to
testify on those excerpts?

What's the purpose of such filings?
(My non-lawyer epidermis is showing!)(grin)

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan is talking again!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict

In an exclusive interview Tuesday about Samsung's secret new allegations, Hogan, an engineer, confirmed that he was a party in two cases cited in Samsung's brief, a 1993 case from municipal court in Santa Cruz titled Seagate Technology v. Hogan and a 1993 federal bankruptcy case titled In re Velvin R. Hogan. According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house.

Hogan is being simple with the truth when explaining who sued who. Seagate is the Plaintiff and Hogan is the defendant. Hogan filed a cross complaint. Go to Santa Cruz Case Inquiry and search under Court Case Number => MS930919, then click on the highlighted number in the listing to see the details. At the top of the page, click on Case Report to see everything at once.

This may not be a big deal but on the other hand, it is consistent with Hogan seeing things that are important only from his perspective. That may also be what got him into friction with Seagate. This could get interesting. If this is a character trait/flaw of his, he won't stop defending himself because he can't and he will never admit that he's wrong. Also, someone like this could never follow the rules of court if it is not to their liking and Samsung would have every reason to have the verdict overturned and a new trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury instructions
Authored by: miltonw on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT

I was called to jury duty and was selected to sit on a case last week.

While this case was not nearly as important as this one, I noticed the following instruction from the judge:

"In your deliberations, you may only use evidence that was presented in court. You may not rely on information from elsewhere, including your own experiences."

This was, rather obviously, boilerplate instructions that the judge gives for all cases -- and it is the law. Those who would claim that you should be able to rely on your own "evidence" are not thinking it through. The "facts" that you might think are applicable and important have not been vetted by the judge nor have they been properly challenged by the attorneys.

You simply cannot take the law into your own hands and decide your "evidence" should be included, as Hogan has. It is not justice by any definition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-1993) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
From Fosspatents.com:


What I like about Apple's motion is that Apple is at the same mindful of the
jurors' privacy and not at all afraid to discuss in public what needs to be
addressed because of Samsung's initiative. I continue to be very skeptical of
Samsung's chances of winning a new trial on the grounds of misconduct. It
wouldn't even be easy to hold a hearing at which the jurors have to testify.
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) allows only some very limited exceptions
under which jurors may serve as witnesses on what happened in the same
case. As Professor Brian Love noted on Twitter, even "[e]vidence jurors
drank
heavily [and] used marijuana [and] cocaine at lunch breaks [is apparently] not
enough", pointing to the pretty astounding Tanner v. United States affair
(Wikipedia summary, full text of Supreme Court decision). If you're looking for

a story on a jury that really misbehaved in unbelievable ways, Tanner is an
example next to which anything Samsung appears to allege in Apple v.
Samsung pales in comparison, if there can be any comparison at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )